Join host Steve Gregg as he dives into engaging discussions about biblical prophecies, historical commentaries, and theological interpretations. This episode features debates on whether the modern state of Israel fulfills ancient prophecies and an exploration of the themes of justice and reconciliation through King David’s troubled family legacy. Listeners from all over the US call in to share their perspectives, ask Bible-related questions, and discuss the dynamics of sin, punishment, and God’s character.
00:49:37 Leadership Accountability and Dr. Michael Brown
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 so that we can take your calls and talk in real time with you. If you have a question you’d like to ask on the air about the Bible or the Christian faith for us to discuss, or if you see things differently from the host and want to offer alternative insights, feel free to give me a call. The number is 844-484-5700. 37. That’s 844-484-5737. Now, I have an itinerary in Oregon that I’ll be beginning in less than a week from now. It’ll begin next Thursday night and go on for close to two weeks. And I’ll be speaking to lots of different places in Oregon, Salem, Portland, on the coast of You know, inland a few places, too. I mean, I’m going to be all over the place. So if you are in Oregon somewhere and you’d like to come to one of these meetings, you can go and find out about them at our Web site. The narrow path dot com under the tab that says announcements. You can also find out whatever details you may want to know about the debate in November. that I will be having with Dr. Michael Brown about the subject, is the modern state of Israel a fulfillment of prophecy? Obviously, Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish Christian, is going to defend the idea that the modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy. My position is, if it is, someone’s going to have to show me which prophecy that is, because I don’t know of any prophecy in the Bible that predicts an end times state of Israel. And also… I don’t know of anything in the Bible that would identify a state of Israel that is not in covenant with God. The only thing that made Israel a distinctive nation in the Bible times was they had a covenant with God. The modern state of Israel doesn’t even acknowledge God. So, I mean, I’m not sure how that would be related. But we’ll be talking about those things and debating them. Three debates on one weekend, November 7th and 8th, in Dallas or Fort Worth. The reason I say that is because there’s two locations there. different sizes depending on the size of the crowd that we anticipate. We’ll have to choose which one to use. But we will be in Dallas or Fort Worth, Texas, and I’m sure there will be live streams for those who can’t make it down there. Anyway, you can find out more about that by going to our website, thenarrowpath.com, and looking under announcements. And we’re going to go to the phones right now as our lines have filled up. Our first caller today is Brian from New Ipswich.com. New Hampshire. Hi, Brian. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes. Hi, Steve. My question comes out of 2 Samuel, after King David had committed the sins against Uriah, his wife. Yes. And on the 11th verse, it says, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of his son. I have a three-part question. One is, did he really follow through and do this? The second question I have is, wouldn’t it be punishing the wives for making them have a sexual relationship with other men that would be something that they would probably be totally against and be punished for something they didn’t do? And the third question is, We teach, you know, like two wrongs don’t make a right. How do we work this when it was something that seems like that, I don’t know, I hate to say that God was doing, but anyway.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, okay, though two wrongs don’t make a right, it is nonetheless the case that justice needs to be done to correct wrongs that have been done. And David did a wrong against a man’s family. destroying it basically by having the man killed and taking his wife. And now David’s family was going to suffer wrong. It was just kind of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth kind of a thing. David was not going to be put to death, although he should have been, because he committed both murder and adultery, both of which under the law under which the Jews lived, the law of Moses, both were capital crimes. But because David repented, God told the prophet, well, I’m not going to make David die. After all, he is the king. It would be quite disruptive. But he’s not going to get away with no punishment. Now, the punishment had many factors. One is that Bathsheba was pregnant with David’s child, and that child would not survive. A second one is, as you pointed out in verse 11, you didn’t mention the chapter, but for those who are interested, 2 Samuel 12, 11 says, Behold, I will raise up an adversary against you from your own house. Okay, well, yeah, that happened. Specifically, it’s talking about Absalom. David actually had trouble with several of his sons. Absalom and Amnon and Adonijah were all sons of his that brought disgrace or danger to David. because of their wickedness. And so, you know, the prophet said that the sword will not depart from David’s house all the days of his life. And sure enough, his kids were a serious problem and danger to him. The main one he’s referring to is, of course, Absalom, because it was Absalom who ousted David from the throne and sought to kill him and take his throne from him. Now, Absalom did not succeed, but he certainly was an adversary to David within David’s house. And Absalom is the one also who took David’s wives and concubines and slept with them, as it says, in the sight of the sun. We find out that when Absalom ran David out of town, he took the concubines of David and slept with them on the roof of the house. There were ten of them. And now you said, well, would that be unfair to the women? Yeah, I guess it probably would be unfair to the women. So a lot of things people do are unfair to women or to other people, to children or even other men. Actually, Israel sometimes suffered in a big way for the sins of their kings. And in this case, these concubines didn’t sin, but they suffered because of David’s sin. Now, God didn’t say he’s going to make Absalom sleep with them. Absalom did that on his own. What he said is he’s going to give those women to Absalom. That is, Absalom would be the one, he’d have the power to do what he wanted with them. What he did with them was his own wicked choice. And God predicts what it will be because God knows that kind of stuff. So there’s nothing really here that God is doing unfairly. And so that’s, you know, I don’t see it as a problem, you know, landing on God. It’s simply a matter of God. telling David, this is what’s going to happen to you. Now, much of the problems that arose in his house, including Absalom’s rebellion, occurred sort of as a natural result, I think, of David’s sin with Bathsheba and the killing of her husband. Because Absalom’s rebellion began way back with an earlier event, shortly after this chapter, in fact, the very next chapter. One of David’s sons, Amnon, raped his sister, Tamar. Now, Tamar was half sister to Amnon, but full sister to Absalom. And David did nothing about it. Now, the Bible says David heard about it. He was angry about it, but he didn’t do anything, which is why? I mean, David was a man of action. David was a man of resolve. David would go and conquer cities. Why didn’t he step in and do something about his son’s transgression about this, the sexual sin of his son? Well, there’s a good chance it was because David felt like, who am I? Who am I to judge? You know, what I did, what I did was horrible. I killed a man and took his wife. How can I punish my son who did a sexual sin too? You know, isn’t that, don’t I have a beam in my own eye? How can I take them out from his eye? I mean, David wouldn’t, those are not the words David would be thinking of. But it was probably because of David’s awareness and shame over his own sin that he kind of let, he got angry about this, but he didn’t do anything about it. Well, that led Absalom, the full brother of Tamar, the girl who’d been raped, to take vengeance into his own hands, and he killed Amnon. Well, then Absalom had to flee the country because he would have to be put to death for the death of Amnon. But eventually, after years of being in another country, Joab interceded for Absalom and got permission from David that Absalom could come back to the country again. But Absalom, when he came back, began to turn people away from David and began to curry favor with him so that he could stage a rebellion against David. So that’s how it all played out. It all began with Amnon raping Tamar. Then Absalom killed Amnon, and then Absalom had to flee, and then Absalom and his father were alienated, and then Absalom decided to take the throne from him. All of that is what was predicted to happen, and probably the very first domino to fall, namely Amnon. you know, frankly, Absalom’s murder of Amnon, was because David didn’t have the backbone to punish his son Amnon for what he had done. And it may even be that Amnon took the liberty of doing this because of what David had done. He thought, well, if Dad can do this kind of stuff, I can do this kind of stuff. So, I mean, a man’s sin often comes back to haunt him in the behavior of his children, and that’s what this prediction was. And it did happen exactly as predicted. Ryan from Linwood, Washington. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi, Steve. So I just finished your book on hell, The Three Views. Really good. Thanks. Just about every question that I was coming up with, you addressed. But you’re the one that has brought the three different views to my mind. and the evidence for them, and like watching your lectures in the past, but I finally read your book, and thinking about the scriptures, I always thought that the way that God dealt with Nebuchadnezzar, making him, you know, like a wild animal for seven years, what is, it makes me think of universal reconciliation, or at least, you know, like his dealings with people. What do you think about that?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I imagine what you’re referring to is the fact that Nebuchadnezzar offended God by becoming arrogant about the accomplishments that he had accomplished as a great conqueror and not giving the credit to God and got arrogant and so forth. And so God struck him, but not permanently, but gave him seven years of insanity, uh, And that brought him to his senses, and then he was restored to his position. So what you’re saying is this is an instance of God punishing somebody who deserves punishment in his sight, and yet giving him another chance, or the punishment is temporary. It tended to reform him. And you said that that sounds maybe like a parallel to the idea of universal reconciliation, which is the view that when God does consign people to hell… and the Bible does certainly teach that there will be those who are thrown into the lake of fire, which is hell, that it’s maybe not permanent. Maybe it’s disciplinary, just like the madness of Nebuchadnezzar was merely disciplinary. So could hell be. And maybe through it, God intends to restore that person to repentance and even to salvation. Now, that is the view that Origen held, and much of the early church held that view before the time of Augustine, as you know. Would the instance of Nebuchadnezzar and his madness prove such a point? Well, of course it wouldn’t because there are times when God disciplines and there’s times when God just snuffs people out. I mean, Nebuchadnezzar is an instance where God didn’t snuff him out and he did reform him. He did, you know, discipline him and brought him back around. Though the Old Testament is full of other stories where, and the New Testament too, where people got snuffed instantly. I mean, take Herod in Acts chapter 12. Herod Agrippa II, he was taking credit for being a godlike man in the sight of his subjects. And it says the angel of the Lord struck him and the worms ate him and he died. So he didn’t get that seven years of discipline, he just got snuffed. And so, you know, for any times we know of that God used disciplinary action instead of final actions, let’s say, in judging a man, there’d be other cases where he did use you know, final actions. Uh, and so we can find instances of both in God’s dealings with sinners in this life. Um, and you know, if one believed, let’s say in, um, uh, conditional immortality and they believe in annihilationism, they could take the case of Herod being struck by, uh, by, uh, you know, the angel of the Lord and eaten by worms and dying as an example of how God deals with sinners. And they could make that a case for annihilationism. Uh, Or if we were going to use Nebuchadnezzar’s example, we could make it a case for God disciplining sinners or restoring them. But we’re not given any solid reason to believe that either of those cases are really parallel to what God does ultimately in the lake of fire. What they do tell us is that that is one way that God has sometimes judged people, and that may resemble what happens to people in hell. Uh, but it wouldn’t really be a proof text. It wouldn’t be a case where we could prove it from it.
SPEAKER 09 :
Right. Yeah. I’m just considering God’s character. Um, yeah, but yeah, he brought up some, some other good points.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Well, that’s all right. Okay. Good talking to you, brother. Thanks for calling. Bye now. Uh, Carrie from Fort Worth, Texas. Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 06 :
All right, Steve. Uh, I don’t really rely on commentaries, but I have been wanting to read maybe some commentaries by people before dispensational thought. And I’ve come across Tyndale and Matthew Henry, and I was wondering if you could tell me if that would kind of satisfy my needs there.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, when you say the Tyndale commentaries, are you talking about the multi-volume sets called the Tyndale Old Testament commentaries and the Tyndale New Testament commentaries?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Now, those aren’t really ancient commentators. I mean, these were written in more modern times, but they are not written by dispensationalists. They are written by people who have a more, what I would say, a more old-fashioned scholarly approach to the Bible today. that resembles that of the pre-dispensational writers. There’s plenty of modern writers who are not dispensationalists and who hold the views that basically, which we call the historical views of the church, dispensationalism being the novelty that came up in the 19th century. But there are still lots of commentators who are not dispensationalists, and that would include the contributors to the Tyndale Commentary Series. I have… I’ve recommended, as you probably have heard me recommend, the Tyndale commentaries. Not that I recommend any commentary without a reservation because, frankly, I mean, every commentator has his own views about things, and I wouldn’t necessarily say I agree with any commentary on everything. But if you want someone who’s going to not, you know, insert dispensational ideas into their commentary, the Tyndale commentary series is pretty good for that, I would say. And there’s, of course, many volumes available. Of it, they’re paperback, which makes it a little less expensive than some sets. And there’s one set on the Old Testament and one set on the New Testament. Interestingly, the Old Testament says published by a different publisher than the other. I think the New Testament one is put up by InterVarsity Press, and the Old Testament set, if I’m not mistaken, might be put up by, what, Eerdmans or someone like that. I forget. Anyway, yeah, I like those commentaries. I don’t use commentaries very often either. But when I do, you know, those are kind of – I have a lot of commentaries on my shelf, but I’ll go to the Tyndale ones probably sooner than most of the others. And Matthew Henry was definitely pre-dispensational, so you’re not going to get dispensationalism from his comments.
SPEAKER 06 :
Would he be all millennial?
SPEAKER 02 :
I believe that would be true. Yeah, I haven’t used Matthew Henry that much. I know he’s very, very famous, and lots of people have his commentaries, and I just haven’t used them much. His commentaries are more devotional in nature. When I go to a commentary, I’m not looking for someone to give me a devotional lift. I’m looking for someone to help me understand something that might be a little too technical for me to understand without consulting someone more scholarly than myself. And so I like a scholarly exegetical commentary. Myself, that’s what I go to them for, but Matthew Henry’s commentary, which as far as I know is doctrinally sound, his aim seems to be a little more to bring out inspirational and devotional insights from the text, which is great. I’m not saying anything wrong with that. It’s just not the kind of commentary I use very much. So I have not immersed myself at all in Matthew Henry. But because he is pre-dispensationalist, I would assume that I would agree with his eschatology. I mean, I haven’t looked it up.
SPEAKER 06 :
For the Tyndale, you’re saying they’re just borrowing the name and these are not the writings of Tyndale?
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s correct. Tyndale didn’t write commentaries on the whole Bible, no. Tyndale, I’m not sure why they’re called Tyndale. There is a… There’s a lot of Christian organizations and publishers called, like there’s Tyndale House Publishing. But I don’t think they put out this one. I’m not sure exactly why these are called Tyndale, but they’re not written by Tyndale. Now, Tyndale lived, of course, before the time of Martin Luther. And there’s not many people, I don’t think there’s any people that long ago who wrote commentaries on every book of the Bible verse by verse. Calvin was probably one of the first to do that. and he wrote commentaries on every book of the Bible except Revelation, which was probably wise of him to not include Revelation. But nonetheless, he did write commentaries on the whole Bible, which very few people did in those days. Tyndale did not. But the Tyndale commentaries are written by modern authors, but in some ways that makes them more helpful because although they’re not following dispensationalism, and they are following more historic Christianity, they do so from the standpoint of modern knowledge, modern scholarship, and so forth.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, that kind of cools me off towards Tyndale. I thought they were written by Tyndale. I was looking up some of the history of him, and he, wow, was really a great man of God.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, yeah, he was, and a martyr, yeah.
SPEAKER 06 :
So I just thought that Tyndale was his writings, but I’m glad you straightened me out on that. Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Well, God bless you, Terry. Okay, let’s see. Greg from Sonoma, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 05 :
Blessings, Dave.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi.
SPEAKER 05 :
I have two passages from Exodus, Exodus 24, 18. It says, And Moses entered the cloud as he went up, the mountain. That’s referring to Mount Sinai. And he stayed up on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights. Then later in Exodus 34, 28, it says, Moses was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. So, Are those the same 40 days and 40 nights previously mentioned, or are they different?
SPEAKER 02 :
They’re different. There’s a total of 80 days. The first ones you read about describe when he first went up on the mountain and he received the Ten Commandments. Now, Moses didn’t write the Ten Commandments the first time. Notice he did in chapter 34, 28, and the reason he had to do that is because he broke the first set. So the first time he went up for 40 days and 40 nights, that’s when he communed with God. God gave him the stone tablets that had God’s own writing on them by God himself. But that visit was, you know, ended when the children of Israel made a golden calf, and Moses had to go down and confront that. And in his anger, he threw down the stone tablets, and they broke. And so he had to deal with the golden calf thing. And so there’s several chapters here. in there of what happened. And then he went back on the mountain again, and God actually told him, this time you make the stone tablets and bring them up. And then it looks like, now, it’s not that God wrote on these tablets this time. It’s not that God wrote them again, but Moses had to provide the tablets this time. So it wasn’t Moses who wrote them the second time, but he did have to provide the tablets, and it was not apparently done the first time. And so God apparently wrote the Ten Commandments the second time. Both times that Moses was up there, it was 40 days and 40 nights. But it’s clear from the narration that he went up once for that period of time, came down to address the golden calf incident, and then he went back up again another 40 days and 40 nights. So that’s the secret.
SPEAKER 05 :
So a total of 80? Mm-hmm. And… That’s the longest fast in the Bible then because Jesus did 40.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, yeah. And another difference, well, Elijah might have fasted 40 too like Jesus did. But, yeah, Moses did 80. We don’t know if he ate anything between these two. He came down. He was down for a little while. Then he went back up. I suspect he probably had a meal or something when he was down so that it would be not so much an 80-day fast. but two fasts of 40 days each, divided by whatever time he existed between them. On the other hand, we are told that he didn’t eat or drink. It says there in chapter 34, 28, 40 days and 40 nights, he neither ate bread nor drank water. Now, no one else we know did that. Jesus didn’t go without food and water for 40 days. He went without food. The Bible says he was in the wilderness 40 days and he ate nothing. And then after the 40 days, he was hungry. There’s no mention of him drinking nothing or being thirsty. And if so, that would be one of the greatest miracles Jesus did while he was here because a man cannot live for 40 days without water. He can live for 40 days without food, and that’s not miraculous. I mean, Elijah apparently fasted 40 days as he traveled to Mount Horeb. Moses fasted 40 days twice. Jesus fasted 40 days. I actually have known people, contemporaries of mine, friends of mine, who have fasted 40 days. It’s not a miraculous thing to do. But to go without water that long is, because you can’t really live more than about three days without water in normal circumstances.
SPEAKER 05 :
Can I say one last thing?
SPEAKER 02 :
Very quickly, yeah.
SPEAKER 05 :
Philippians… Chapter 4, 13, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. So that’s a reply to our lives, too.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes. Now, Paul’s not talking about fasting miraculously without water for 40 days, but you’re right. What God calls him to do, he can do through Christ who strengthens him. Yep, I agree with you on that. Thank you for your call. I’ve got to take a break. If you’re listening to The Narrow Path, we’re not done. We have another half hour, so don’t go away. We’d like you to know that The Narrow Path is listener-supported. If you’d like to write to us, you can do so at The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 11 :
Tell your family, tell your friends, tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to send you but everything to give you. And that’s The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. When today’s radio show is over, go to your social media and send a link to thenarrowpath.com where everyone can find free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. And tell them to listen live right here on the radio. Thank you for sharing. Listener supported The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.
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 join us with your question from the Bible, you may be able to get through. Right now you can’t because it looks like our lines have just filled up, but if you try a little later, lines open up. The number is 844-484-5737. Our next caller today is Karen from Cape Elizabeth, Maine. Karen, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi, Pastor C. Thanks for taking my call. I love your show.
SPEAKER 02 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
um yeah okay probably hopefully a quick question you know when someone dies and they go up to heaven and then people go on with their lives and they say oh i know so and so is watching down on me right now and i’m so happy and they’re seeing this and that and i know that’s probably not true because it doesn’t say anywhere in the bible that our loved ones are looking down on us but There’s also a story or verses in the Bible that actually talk about how someone died and they’re actually not any longer on earth and living earthly, but they’re living in the heavens and they’re living, you know, in eternity now. And I was just curious, can you enlighten me on what that verse or story is? Or do you know?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, yeah, the only… You might be thinking of the story of Lazarus and the rich man, though it doesn’t quite make those points. The story of Lazarus and the rich man does talk about two men who died, and one went to be in Abram’s bosom, and the other went to Hades and was in flames, and there was a conversation recorded between the lost man and Abraham in the story. Now, none of those people were paying much attention to what was going on on earth, with the exception… that the rich man in Hades was concerned about his five brothers who were still living. And he was wishing that Lazarus, the beggar, could be sent back from the grave to witness to his brothers so they wouldn’t have to come there. And he was told that that’s not necessary. They have the scriptures. They can follow the scriptures if they want to avoid coming there. Now, you know, that talks about a conversation and stuff. And there is reference made to people who were alive on earth. But there’s no mention of them being watched or that anyone in the afterlife was necessarily aware of any details of what was going on in their lives. Paul does talk about his own death in Philippians chapter 1, where he said he was rotting away in prison and he could wish to depart and be with the Lord, which is far better, he said. And that, of course, is talking about dying. To go be with the Lord. Of course, he doesn’t give any details then about after he goes to the Lord, whether he’d be paying attention to anything here on earth. He spoke very similarly in 2 Corinthians 5, where he said that when we die, we’re absent from the body then and present with the Lord. But again, he tells us nothing about any awareness that we’ll have of things on earth. I don’t think the Bible necessarily tells us plainly anything about people who have passed on being aware of what’s going on here on earth. Some might interpret it that way when they read in Hebrews 12.1. It says we are encompassed by a great cloud of witnesses, and we should therefore run the race. with diligence before us. So if that’s, you know, some people think that the witnesses refers to people who’ve died and gone to heaven and they’re watching us like they’re in the stands as spectators watching us run our race. And that could be, I mean, that is one possible interpretation of the word witnesses, though, generally speaking, In the Bible, witnesses are people who are testifying to something, like in a court of law, witnesses testify. So not so much that they are spectators, but that they are bearing witness. They’re bearing testimony to us that these people have lived their lives in faith and proven God faithful. Their stories and their lives bear witness to us that we can live by faith and that’s what we should do. And so it doesn’t necessarily mean that those people who have died are watching us as witnesses in the stands at a sports arena, but that their lives and their stories bear witness to us or bear testimony to us of the correctness of living by faith, which the writer is encouraging his readers to do. So I don’t know that there’s anything there or anywhere else that speaks of such a, you know, phenomenon of people in heaven watching us down here. So you personally don’t believe that they are, do you? I don’t think so. I mean, I can’t say what they I don’t know what they’re saying or not. But I mean, when John was caught up into heaven, of course, it was a symbolic vision, in my opinion, in Revelation chapter four. There were a lot of people up there, including 24 elders that probably represent Christians, the church. But they weren’t paying attention to what was going on on Earth so much. They were they were worshiping God and Jesus. And, you know, their focus was there. It is true that the souls of the martyrs are seen in Revelation chapter 6, and they’re saying to God, how long before you avenge our blood and judge those on the earth who killed us? Which would suggest that they at least knew that their murderers had not yet suffered vengeance from God, and they’re praying how long it will be. But again, that might not in any sense mean that they’re watching these people die. they just know that it hasn’t happened yet. So, you know, honestly, I don’t really care if people can see me or not from heaven. I probably just assume they don’t because not everything they would see me do is something I’d be proud of. But on the other hand, if they do, they do. It doesn’t change anything about the way I live.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I get that. Awesome. Well, I really appreciate all that insight. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Thanks for your call, Karen. Let’s see. Dave from Eatonville, Washington. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Hey, Steve. Hi. First-time caller. Can you hear me okay?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, very well. Okay, cool. So I was listening to your verse-by-verse teaching on Matthew 7, 13, and 14. Uh-huh. And you said a couple things that kind of surprised me, and I just wanted to get some clarification. I know you probably made that a while ago, so I don’t know. Maybe I just took it the wrong way. But you mentioned… that it’s kind of like the Christian walk is kind of like a tightrope. And that you said, you know, if you had a backpack of gold, you’ve got to just shred off that backpack of gold. And it just kind of was like, well, you know, it’s kind of hard to walk a tightrope with peace. And then you also said that, you know, Jesus may not say to you, sorry, I never knew you, but he’ll say, sorry, you didn’t do enough. And I was kind of surprised by that, too, because I know when people often ask you, hey, am I doing enough? You all say, like, doing enough for what?
SPEAKER 02 :
so I’m just I guess my question is like how do I have how do I enjoy my salvation and that it’s finished when it seems like I might still mess it up by not striving hard enough well as for the second question I’ll address your first question second your second question you made it sound as if I said people who are lost Jesus will say to them they didn’t do enough is that what you said I said yeah I thought that’s No, I would never say that you’re lost because you didn’t do enough. That would mean salvation would be by works. No, we’re saved by Christ. What Jesus did say about those people who were lost, he said in verse 21 of Matthew 7, Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. And he says, Many will say to me that day, Lord, Lord, Have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name? And I will declare to them, I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness. Now, there’s nothing said there about someone not doing enough. It’s more like what they did do, they thought, made them Christians. And they didn’t do what makes them Christians. Jesus said, the ones who enter the kingdom of heaven are those who do the will of my Father in heaven. Now, that doesn’t mean they had to do more than what they did. It means they had to do different things than what they did. That means that they were thinking that by prophesying and casting out demons and doing mighty works, this was somehow the proof that they were saved. And Jesus is apparently saying, I didn’t ask you to do those things. What you didn’t do is the will of my Father. Now, what is the will of the Father? The will of the Father is that we follow Christ. So it’s not a matter of doing enough things. It’s a matter of just going the right direction and following Christ and so forth. And, of course, you’ll do things. People do things every day, whether they’re Christians or not. The question has got to be the things I’m doing, are they done in obedience to God or are they done in negligence of what he says to do? So it’s not a matter of doing enough or not doing enough, it’s a matter of walking in obedience to God as opposed to walking in disobedience to God. Now, a person who walks in disobedience to God, generally speaking, does as many things as the person who walks in obedience to God because you’ve got the same number of hours of the day. You’re doing something at all moments. So it’s not a matter of doing more or less. It’s a matter of doing what matters. And what matters is whether you’re doing the will of God or something else. And that’s what Jesus talks about. So, yeah, I certainly have never said in any comments at all, I mean, I would be very shocked, and I would never say what would shock me, to think that, you know, a person’s not saved because they didn’t do enough. So you must have heard me wrong on that. I’ve never had anyone tell me.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I apologize, brother. I’ll go back and check, but I apologize.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, but let’s talk about the tightrope then. Let’s talk about the tightrope. Verse 13 and 14, Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leads to destruction. And there are many who go by it because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life. And there are few who find it. Now, Jesus talks about two different things you can find depending on what path you’re on. You can find life or destruction. The path of life is a narrow path and a difficult path. Now, if I compare that to a tightrope, it’s only in this respect. You can only stay on a tightrope by making sure you don’t step to one side. you have to step on the rope. If you step over too much to the right or the left, you’re not going to stay on the rope. You’re going to fall off. And that’s true of the narrow path. Maybe it’s not quite as narrow as a rope, but the same principle implies. God tells his people in the Old Testament, keep my ways and don’t step to the right or to the left. The idea is the path is narrow. It’s not like you can wander around from side to side. You have to stay on the path. Because, well, that’s the only path that leads to the narrow gate, that leads to eternal life. And I did mention that if a person has to walk a tightrope, they probably would choose to do it carrying a light load. And, you know, carrying extra baggage would not be something someone would choose to do. Now, I’m not saying they couldn’t walk on it carrying extra baggage. I’ve heard of a guy who stretched a tightrope across Niagara Falls and was able to push a wheelbarrow across it. That seems very risky to me, but he managed it. Apparently he got across. So I wasn’t saying you can’t walk on a tightrope with special encumbrances, but if you knew that your survival depended on getting across safely to the end of a rope that you have to walk on, you probably would survive. assess how many things do I want to try to carry with me on this and how much can I leave behind because you’ll have much more control over your steps if you’re not overly burdened with unnecessary things. That’s the point I would be making. So I’m not saying the narrow path is as narrow as a tightrope is. You’re saying that walking a tightrope sounds like a nervous thing to do. Well, if you’re a tightrope walker, maybe not. I mean, if you’re an acrobat and you walk on tightropes all the time, I mean, I’ve seen tightrope rockers who can do flips and twists and do all kinds of things I wouldn’t think possible. But if somebody has the skill to walk on a tightrope, they don’t seem very nervous, probably. But the point I was making is not about being nervous. The point I was making is about there’s only one path that Jesus describes reading to the narrow gate. And it’s a narrow one. And if that makes someone nervous, maybe in some cases they should be because some people may be trying to expand the width of the path that they want to walk wider than it actually is. And they may end up off the path. And that’s the way it would be analogous to a tightrope. Not that it’s quite as narrow as a tightrope. That was not my point.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Okay. Okay, yeah, I just wanted to, you know, check. It’s not like the Christian walk is like one wrong move and you’re out or something. I mean, I feel like, you know, just it being a path, you’re walking with the Lord and the Holy Spirit’s going to guide you. I’ve certainly felt like the Holy Spirit will pull you back on the path, you know.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, he can do that. But one wrong step and you are, in fact, off the path and you have to get back on it. You know, the idea is the path is a narrow one and you can’t just wander around, you know, unrestrained. and still be on the path. Now, maybe you can wander around unrestrained, but you won’t be on the path if you do. So the idea is that it’s a narrow path, and God wants you to walk on it. I’m not saying that the person who steps off to the side and isn’t on the path at the moment will never be saved, but they’ll have to get back on it. So that’s all I’m seeing in the passages.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, yeah, no, I agree with that.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, well, thank you for your call. Okay, let’s talk to Anthony from Memphis, Tennessee. Anthony, welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes, sir. I have a question for you about the age of accountability that I can’t seem to find anywhere. And the other one has to do with female pastors. I don’t mean prophets. I don’t mean teachers. I mean pastors. Are there any examples?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, no. On the matter of pastors… In the Bible, there are no what we think of as pastors. I mean, in our modern churches, usually refers to somebody who’s the one person kind of in charge of the organization that we call the church. And they’re the ones that, you know, everyone looks to as kind of the CEO. If there’s a board of directors or board of elders or deacons or whatever, that the pastor is usually seen as the one who’s like the CEO or chairman of the board or whatever. That’s the way modern churches are set up. We don’t have any examples of that in the Bible. We don’t have any case of pastors of that sort being appointed male or female. But we do in the Bible have people who are told to pastor or to shepherd the church, and they are called the elders or the overseers. There are many references to them. And the churches that Paul established, and as far as we know, other churches too that Paul didn’t establish, had what we call elderships or presbyteries, and they were groups of men who were overseers and shepherds. The word pastor means shepherd. And so they were told by Peter in 1 Peter 5, verses 1-4, they are told to shepherd the church, the elders are told to shepherd the church. Paul also spoke to the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20, and in verse 28, he told them to shepherd the flock. So obviously the shepherding or the pastoring of the church was assigned to the eldership The idea that there’s one pastor, one shepherd, who’s the main boss of the church, did not have any, you know, any authorization in the New Testament times. That developed in later centuries. But Paul did say that the elders should not be women because he said they had to be the husband of one wife. And although, you know, modern gender theory, radical gender theory, I guess, supposes that a woman could or a man, a woman could be a husband. the Bible doesn’t have any truck with that kind of nonsense. The Bible recognizes men were husbands, women are wives, and the elder had to be the husband, not the wife. Had to be the husband of one wife. That’s both of the places where Paul talks about the qualifications for being in that role, which are 1 Timothy 3 and Titus chapter 1. Both of those places give the qualifications for elders. Both of them say that the elder has to be the husband of one wife, so obviously a woman would not be able to fit that qualification. It’s not the only qualification. Actually, as Paul goes on, much of what he says would disqualify most men, too, because most men do not really measure up to what Paul says an elder should be. Even most Christian men don’t. So it’s not just that they have to be a man, but they have to be a man of a certain rare type, rare quality of man. But certainly being a man is the first box to tick. They have to be the husband of one wife. Now, you had another question before that I’m trying to remember what it was.
SPEAKER 07 :
Age of accountability.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, yeah. The Bible doesn’t tell us what the age of accountability is. It does mention such an age of accountability, but it doesn’t tell us It doesn’t tell us what it is. It’s in Isaiah chapter 14. I’m sorry, not 14. Isaiah chapter 7. I said 14 because Isaiah 7, 14 is an important verse. But he says in verse 16, Isaiah 7, 16 says, For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and to choose the good. such and such things will happen he’s talking about the birth of an actual child and before that child reaches the age of knowing to refuse evil and choose good meaning before that child reaches an age of knowing right from wrong and that’s what we would call the age of accountability the Bible doesn’t use that terminology but that certainly is the idea that’s mentioned here then certain things will happen that presumes that a child reaches that age before they are in a very advanced age They reached a point of accountability. But what that age is, I’m afraid only God would know. We’re never told what that age is. There are several indicators of different kinds. There’s a verse in Deuteronomy chapter 1 which makes some people think that the age of accountability is 20 years old. The Jews typically seem to see the age of 13 as the age of accountability. That’s why there’s a bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah at that age for the Jewish boys and girls, respectively. Some people would place the age of accountability a lot earlier than that. One suggestion is that Adam and Eve became morally aware at the same moment they became aware that they were naked and wanted to become modest and hide their nakedness. Obviously, a little baby doesn’t have any awareness of its nakedness or any shame about it, but at a certain age, virtually all children get to a place where they do want some privacy when they dress. They are aware that they’re naked and don’t want to just parade around in that condition. And that could mean that they have reached that point that Adam and Eve reached where they suddenly realized, hey, I’m naked and I also know good from evil. That might be a corresponding event. But I don’t know. These are all speculations because the Bible doesn’t tell us what that age is. But God is the only one who has to know because he’s the one who has to judge people, including children when they die. He knows how accountable they are or not. And there are some people, possibly even in adulthood, who haven’t reached it because of mental deficiencies. There are people with disabilities, mental disabilities, who may never reach an actual age of accountability because they never advanced very far beyond a childlike mind. So God, who is the just judge, will judge all of those things. And he’ll do it rightly. All right. Jeff from North Carolina. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 10 :
How are you doing, Steve? I’ve got a couple questions. The first one I’ll ask, and then I’ll ask the second one afterwards if that’s okay. Okay. It’s kind of like on the topic you were talking about a couple of callers back about, you know, leadership, church leadership. It says that they’re held to a higher judgment and a higher accountability, like above reproach is what’s used. What does that really mean for the leaderships like the elders and pastors and ministers of churches? What does that mean? Go to a higher accountability.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, well, the higher accountability that’s referred to is in James where it says don’t be many teachers for we who teach will receive a stricter judgment, which is pretty much the idea you’re talking about there. Now, it does say in the qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3 that they have to have a good report or have a good reputation for outside of the church. So unbelievers have to think well of them. That means they do have to have a social accountability among men that people recognize them as honest and good people of good character. Yes. So, I mean, an elder or a pastor or church leader should be somebody who, when people look at their life, they can’t see anything really blatantly wrong with them. Now, some people think, well, that’s not realistic. Well, it’s a sad thing if people say that’s not realistic. Because I actually have known a lot of Christians who, you know, being with them, I couldn’t find anything scandalously wrong with them over the years. Yeah. So, I mean, if the church has a really low standard and says, well, we’re all a bunch of losers. We all do the wrong thing all the time. We all sin and thought, word, and deed every day. I mean, the church I was raised in said that kind of stuff. I’d say, well, maybe that’s true of you. It’s not true of the normal Christian life described in Scripture.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, and history actually proves that. History of ministers. There’s been plenty of ministers in history that were held to that accountability, and they did it. Right, that’s correct. It should be. The second question. I got a second question. I know you’re getting ready to debate Michael Brown. Do you know anything about his scandalists? Things going on when he committed sexual assault and did all that stuff?
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, he did not commit any sexual assault. At least it hasn’t come out if he did. There are two scandals that happened, and they happened 23 years ago, and he repented of them at the time. I don’t think any of it’s been repeated, so that’s kind of a quarter of a century ago he did something bad. and repented of it, and some people make that something that disqualifies them. One of the things he did was he had an emotional affair with a married friend of his, a woman who was a friend of his along with her husband. He repented of that long ago, apologized to them as near as I could tell. Sounds like they forgave him. It was all in the mind. There was no assault of any kind. Someone said he assaulted someone. I think they’re using their imagination, unless they know something that hasn’t been publicized. And then the other thing was there was a young woman that he says was like a daughter to him. Now, the problem here is that he showed all kinds of affection to her, such as he said he would show to his daughters. But it’s the kind of affection that some people would call too… I don’t know, too intimate or something like that. No, they didn’t have sex. He didn’t touch her sexually, as far as we know. When she left the ministry some years later, she apparently was still on good terms. She didn’t feel like she had been in any way sexually wronged. There’s never been the suggestion that he sexually did anything to her. Although, of course, he did things. He showed affection in ways that most men do not show to their daughters. But it was not the kind of thing that could be said to be explicitly sexual. Things like her sitting on his lap and things like that. And him kissing her and things. But not making out with her. I mean, it’s like, you know, it’s borderline stuff. But it was not a sexual assault. So, you know, there was scandal. But there’s also been repentance, as near as I can tell. And I think he came clean about a long time ago. Now, some people say he’s being mealy-mouthed about it now. Well, if he came clean a long time ago, I’m not sure why he has to talk more about it now. I mean, I wouldn’t see a reason for that. Anyway, I can’t tell much about Michael Brown personally. I don’t know him. But what I have heard are all the scandals they talk about. And I don’t see this as something that should be held against him all his life if he’s repented of it long ago. Anyway, that’s my thoughts. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Have a good weekend.
Join host Steve Gregg as he dives into engaging discussions about biblical prophecies, historical commentaries, and theological interpretations. This episode features debates on whether the modern state of Israel fulfills ancient prophecies and an exploration of the themes of justice and reconciliation through King David’s troubled family legacy. Listeners from all over the US call in to share their perspectives, ask Bible-related questions, and discuss the dynamics of sin, punishment, and God’s character.
Exploring Christian Eschatology with Steve Gregg
Join host Steve Gregg as he dives into engaging discussions about biblical prophecies, historical commentaries, and theological interpretations. This episode features debates on whether the modern state of Israel fulfills ancient prophecies and an exploration of the themes of justice and reconciliation through King David’s troubled family legacy. Listeners from all over the US call in to share their perspectives, ask Bible-related questions, and discuss the dynamics of sin, punishment, and God’s character.
More Episodes
Church Offices, Gender Neutral Misunderstandings, Doing God’s Will, Coveting & Lusting, Reproach & Contempt
Paul’s Journey, Modern Day Prophets, Jesus’ Temptations, Amillenialism
Corinthians 1, Free Will, Divine Synergy, Helping the Homeless, Jerusalem Council
Prophecies: Israel, Babylon, Christ; The Day of the LORD, Moses with Christ in View, More on Dispensationalism