Menu
On this edition of The Narrow Path, Steve Gregg addresses some of the most misunderstood ideas in modern Christianity—grace, holiness, obedience, and legalism. Listeners call in with thoughtful questions about prophetic timelines in Daniel and Revelation, the condition of the modern church, and whether today’s events in Israel point to the end times.
The heart of the program centers on a powerful discussion about holiness versus legalism. Steve explains that biblical holiness is not rule-keeping or moral performance, but being genuinely set apart for God—belonging to Him alone. He challenges popular ideas of grace that excuse sin, walking listeners through
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
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 you’d like to ask about the Bible or the Christian faith, give me a call. We’ll talk about them. If you have a different viewpoint from the host and want to talk about that, feel free to give me a call. But not right this minute because our lines are full. They just filled up and therefore you would not get through if you call right now. But I’ll bet… If you call 5, 10 minutes from now, you may very well find a line has opened up. And for that purpose, you’ll need to have this number, 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. If you’d like to be on call in a few minutes, we’ll have lines that probably will open up shortly as we’re talking to those who are waiting right now. Okay, let’s go first of all to talk to John from Eastport, Michigan. Hi, John. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Thank you, Steve.
SPEAKER 06 :
I’m calling because I have been on your website and read some of the postings, great postings that you have on there, and we agree on a lot of things. And I would thought, since we agree on many things, I thought I would offer this theory on… the three and a half times, 42 months, and 1260 days, and how they’re related to the statue of Daniel 2, and the three and a half times is in the two witnesses and Revelation 12, the woman.
SPEAKER 01 :
And also the length of the blasphemies of the beast in chapter 13, and the length of time that the Gentiles trampled the Holy City underfoot in chapter 11, verses 1 and 2. Yes, there’s five times there’s mention of that period of time in Revelation.
SPEAKER 06 :
Absolutely. Well, all those are the second three and a half times. The first three and a half times is what the angel says in Daniel 12, 7, where the angel says three and a half times until the power of the holy people is scattered and And so that would show that the first three and a half times is from Babylon till 70 AD when the Great Scattering took place. And then the two witnesses in the woman in the wilderness there, that’s the second three and a half times. So together they both make seven times. Now that’s also the same time period that’s related to the statue of Daniel 2. And so… The statue begins with Babylon, the head of gold, and the statue ends when the toes end. Well, that is the seven times. The first three and a half is from Babylon to 70 AD, and then the second three and a half is from 70 AD until the toes end. Now the… Times of the Gentiles that Jesus spoke about from 70 A.D. onward was the second time, second three and a half times. So that’s one theory I have for you. I thought they’d throw that out there and see what they had to say.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Well, I don’t know if you’re correct or not. Actually, there were no actual reasons for seeing it that way that you mentioned. And I’m sure you have reasons, but that sounds rather complicated. With our lines full, we can’t really take a lot of time to parse that out. I do believe that the three and a half years in Revelation is always the same period of three and a half years whenever it’s mentioned. And I do believe that it is symbolic. for the period of time from 70 AD until the return of Christ at the end of the world. And that sounds like you’re saying something similar to that, but you’re just saying there was a previous period of time symbolically referred to as three and a half years, and that was from the return of the exiles from Babylon to 70 AD. In reading Daniel, I’m not seeing how that works out, but I’m not going to I’m not going to worry about it right now. If you’ve done the math and you’ve got a good reason to believe that, I certainly, you can believe that with my blessing. And I’ll just remain undecided on that particular point. Thank you for your call. Jimmy in Amundale, Minnesota. Welcome. Hi, Jimmy.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes. Hi, Steve. Thank you so much for taking my call. It’s a pleasure to speak with you. And I guess I hope I can word this properly, Steve. As a born-again believer, I love the Lord dearly. He’s everything to me. I’m very concerned, I guess, and grieved with the state of the church as a whole. And I’m not talking about every church and every believer, but in general. It seems to me like the spirit of the age has greatly affected the church. You know, I hear people will talk about the grace of God, yet they will make light of sin and Jesus shedding his precious blood for us and our sins on the cross. You know, I’ll see, like, for example, the politician Pete Buttigieg, who says he’s a Christian, yet he’s married to a man. You know, he loves God. He loves his beer and, you know, his Mustang. And then I’ll watch a UFC fight and The fighters will say, first, I want to give all praise and glory to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And then they’ll go into using profanity after that as if they want to win the world over. They want to be perceived as cool, tolerant and relevant. And I just think that as a believer, you know, our heart should be surrendered to the Lord. We should not want to sin and we should honor him. And so my text would be Romans 6, where he says, Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? And 1 Peter, he says, Be ye holy for I am holy. And I was wondering if maybe you could perhaps describe the difference between holiness and legalism. I think some people might think of being holy as being under legalism, and I wondered if you could perhaps expound if you have any thoughts on that.
SPEAKER 01 :
Sure, I’d be glad to. Thanks for bringing that up. Well, I agree with you that the overall state of the Western church especially is in many ways very compromised. And like you, I’m not saying that’s true of every church. I’m just saying that if we think of the Christian community as represented in the institutional churches today, On average, in the West, I think that there’s not much of a beacon of holiness and light being shined there. I believe the gospel as it is preached popularly. in western evangelicalism is somewhat denatured and truncated missing some of the most important parts like lordship and repentance and obedience and things like that and it sounds like you’re on the same page so i’m not going to disagree with you about that now you’re right if some people say well we need to be holy um and they say well but we’re under grace so we don’t have to be obedient to God because after all well we’re under grace well the verse you read in Romans is quite true And it is the case that we are not permitted to continue in sin. In Hebrews, it says in chapter 12 that we must pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord. And therefore, you know, if we’re not pursuing holiness, we will not see the Lord. And if someone says, yeah, but what about grace? Well, you know, Paul talks about grace a great deal. And one of the places… he makes clear that many American evangelicals have never grasped what grace means, is in Titus chapter 2 and verse 11 and 12, where Paul said, for the grace of God, there’s the subject matter, grace, that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us, that’s the verb of the sentence, grace is the subject, grace has been revealed, grace teaches us. that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age. And that’s what grace teaches us. If someone says, well, I’m not taught that, well, then you haven’t encountered grace yet, because that’s what grace teaches you. If someone says, I’m under grace, I’m not under law, well, you’re not under grace if it’s not teaching you, because you may be using a word called grace in your vocabulary. But in the Bible, grace, if you have encountered grace, if you’ve received grace, it teaches you that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, you have to live soberly and righteously and godly in this world. So that’s what grace teaches. If someone says, yeah, but I’m under grace, I don’t have to live a godly life, I’d say what you’re under is not grace, at least not what the Bible calls grace. And if you’re hoping that the grace of God is going to save you on the day of judgment, or even now… Yeah, you better work at finding out what grace really means and make sure that what you’re calling grace is what God calls grace, because I don’t think it is. Now, what is the difference between legalism and holiness? Holiness actually refers to being set apart for God. The idea comes from Old Testament images of the tabernacle was set apart for God. That means you couldn’t use it for anything except the worship of God. The furniture and the spoons and the forks and the cups in the tabernacle, they were all holy, which means they were set apart for God. They were holy things. It doesn’t talk about how they behaved. It talks about what status they had. They had the status of being set apart for one use, and that is for the worship of God. The priests also were holy, but that just means they were set apart for the worship of God. It doesn’t mean they were good people. They were obliged to be. They were obligated to be. But they were holy objectively. They were set apart from all other people as the only people who could serve in the tabernacle and the temple and so forth. Now, even the animals that touch the altar are holy. It says in Exodus, whatever touches the altar is holy, meaning whatever animal a priest would put on the altar is a sacrifice. Once it was in contact with the holy altar, it was also now holy. That is, it was set apart for God. You couldn’t do anything with that animal except offer it as a sacrifice to God. So to say that something is holy means that it’s in a category different than everything else. It is set apart for God and for his glory and for his worship. Now, when the Bible says that we have to be holy and we are holy, God said, be holy for I’m holy. And the Bible calls us saints, which is simply in the Greek, the word means holy ones, those who have been set apart for God, just like, you know, when you get married, the woman you marry is set apart for you. She’s not available to anyone else anymore. When she was single, she had any number of options of who she could be with, but now that she’s married to you, she’s set apart for only one man, you, and likewise you for her. Now, that’s what being set apart means. Now, a woman who has been set apart for one man might behave very inappropriately. She might behave like she’s not set apart for him. She might cheat. She might definitely do things that are not appropriate, in which case she is violating the holy statute, the holy matrimony that set her apart for her husband. And the same, of course, goes the other direction if the man does that. So when people disobey God, if they have been set apart for God, it’s a great sacrilege. And great sacrileges in the Bible are usually punished very severely. And, you know, I won’t say… Because I don’t know exactly how God will deal with people that he set apart for himself, but who don’t in their own behavior and choices set themselves apart for him. Because Peter said, as he who has called you is holy, so you be holy in all manner of your conduct. That’s in 1 Peter chapter 2, is it? Or is it chapter 1? Let’s see. Chapter 1. He says in verse 15. 1 Peter 1.15. But as he who called you is holy, so you also be holy in all your conduct. Because it is written, be holy for I am holy. God is holy. He’s set apart from all other things mundane. And he has set us apart for himself. He hasn’t set everybody apart for himself. Those who are in Christ have been set apart for a different purpose than those who are not in Christ. And anyone who is a Christian is in Christ and therefore set apart for a purpose. And that is to be saved. only available to God for his purposes. If you were a priest in the temple, you could not say, well, I think I’m going to go become a carpenter for a few years because I kind of like that kind of work, or I think I’m going to go be a fisherman for a few years. No, you were set apart for one thing. That’s what a priest is. You’ve been set apart, and you’re not available for other things. The spoons in the temple were holy. They were set apart for only the use and the worship of God. You couldn’t take one of those spoons and use it for something at home. It might not be different physically than any other spoon, but it’s in a different class. than other spoons because it belongs to the temple and it’s only for the Lord. That’s what being holy means. So you and I, who are Christians, are holy. That is, God has set us apart for himself. And Peter says, since that is true, behave it. He says, be holy in your behavior, in your conduct, he says. So this is not legalism. Legalism is where it leaves the whole holiness thing out. It’s just a matter of You want to be right with God? Obey these rules. Well, there really isn’t a set of rules that, you know, in themselves will make you right with God. Though, of course, if you are holy and if you recognize that you are set apart for God, you will obey his standards and you will live up to the holy code that you know he has, which other people maybe don’t know about or don’t obey. So obedience to God. is absolutely mandatory for those who are set apart for God. That’s what they’re set apart for. They’re set apart to be obedient to him and to serve him and to do what it is he’s called them to do. So legalism has to do with trying to be religiously righteous, by doing enough good works or keeping enough of the right rules. Now, that’s an entirely different mentality. It’s like, again, talking about marriage again, if there’s a woman that you hire to clean your house and to cook your food and to watch your children, well, she does that on a basis of, you know, she’s earning a wage. She does it because she doesn’t want to lose her job. The employment, you know, keeps her alive. and therefore she’ll do the work whether she likes it or not. She’s doing it maybe at times grudgingly because she’s got other things she’d rather do. But if she’s your wife or you’re the husband, put the shoe on the other foot, what you do for each other is done out of love. It’s done out of an agreement that’s made that you’re living for each other, not for yourselves. And, you know, it’s an entirely different thing. I mean, if I belong to God and I love God and I see myself as my only purpose in life is to serve his interests, and I gladly do so because I like belonging to God, well, then that’s a different thing, a different mentality than a legalistic one where you’re trying to earn something from God. All right. I’ve got to take another call, but Jimmy, thanks for your call. Greg in Sonoma, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 02 :
Bless you, Steve. I’ve got a question on sacrifices. In 1 Chronicles 29, verse 21, there’s 3,000 animal sacrifices. And also in 2 Chronicles 1, verse 6, or no. There’s 1,000 animals or something like that, 6,000. So sacrifices of that many animals, and there’s one altar at the temple, and there’s steps to the sacrifices. Sometimes they have to put their hands on the head of the animal. They have to bleed it of the blood. They have to take off the hides. and take out certain organs.
SPEAKER 01 :
In other words, it’s time-consuming, and there’s a lot of it.
SPEAKER 02 :
It’s super time-consuming.
SPEAKER 01 :
It’s like butchering an animal.
SPEAKER 02 :
There’s so many priests who do the work of the Levites, and I don’t understand how it could all be done.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, in the time they have. Good point. Now, the thing is, I think the business of the temple, or the service of the temple, usually wasn’t that challenging to the number of Levites and priests and so forth that were available. There were special holidays, and there were special events where the kings wanted to celebrate something special. They’d bring thousands of additional sacrifices, and they’d sacrifice them over a period of a week or something like that. But you’d still think, how’d they fit it in? I mean, to butcher a bull or a lamb, and that’s what sacrifice is usually involved, and then not only to butcher it, And you don’t have a meatpacking plant where you’re just processing these through and toss them along. get to the next one. But this is a situation where you’re not only slaughtering the animal, you’re, as you say, disposing of the hide a certain way in a certain, you have to get rid of it in a certain clean place. You know, you’re manipulating some of the organs of the animal in a special way as a heave offering or wave offering. You’re keeping some of the meat for the priest. You’re burning some of it on the altar. I mean, there’s this whole ritual and, you know, you’d think it’s time consuming. I believe that most scholars that I’ve read would answer your question by saying that at those special occasions, they did set up additional altars. I mean, there were lots of Levites, you know, probably about, I don’t know, maybe a tenth or so of the population were Levites, which means they had a lot of them around. They weren’t all employed all the time. And likewise, all the priests weren’t employed all the time, because eventually Aaron had thousands and thousands employed. who were all technically priests. And they actually, in the time of Jesus, were told that John the Baptist’s father, who was a priest, was of the order of Avaya, which is one of 24 divisions of the priests who had to share the days of the year to serve. It was a real privilege to actually be called to serve because there were so many priests. There were just too many priests. to serve all the time. But I imagine that on these festivals where there are thousands of animals, they probably called in all the priests. And I’m sure they probably set up additional altars at the temple site just for the special occasion. But, yeah, I mean, if they had their regular temple set up and not modified at all for the special occasions, I don’t know how they would fit all those sacrifices in. It’s a good question.
SPEAKER 02 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Thank you, Greg, for your call. Daniel in New Rochelle, New York. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hey, Steve. How are you, Steve?
SPEAKER 01 :
Good.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thanks. Yeah, no problem. Yeah, Steve, first I want to say, you know, I always listen to your broadcast, and I think you do a great job with your teachings and your ministries.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, I appreciate that, but we only have a few minutes before break. Go ahead and give me your question.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, sure, sure. Yeah, my question is, I’m going to have two questions. One is about the war in Israel and what’s going on in Israel, Lebanon, and Tel Aviv and everything. My first question is, do you believe that the war in Israel right now indicates a sign of the end times? like all the wars of chaos there. And my second question is, when will the temple be rebuilt, that it says in Matthew?
SPEAKER 01 :
All right, yeah, well, Matthew doesn’t say that the temple will be rebuilt. Matthew says the temple will be destroyed. There’s no prediction of the rebuilding of the temple after A.D. 70, but Jesus did predict it would be destroyed in that generation, which occurred in A.D. 70. You know, he said in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 and Mark 13, he said that the temple would be dismantled, that not one stone would be left standing on another. They’d all be thrown down. And that did happen 40 years later. And Jesus said it would. He said it would happen in that generation, which it did. But, you know, there’s no prediction anywhere in the New Testament of a temple being built again. Now, the Old Testament does talk about temples being built again. But I should say the temple being built again. But that was after the Babylonian invasion. The prophecies were made prior to the return of the exiles from Babylon and the return of the exiles to Babylon, after which they built the temple, which we call the second temple, because Solomon’s temple was the first. So the temple is usually referred to as the second temple. That fulfilled those prophecies of the rebuilding of the temples. Now, it was the second temple that was also destroyed in AD 70. So some people think there will be a third temple, but there’s nothing in the Bible that predicts it. So I’m not holding out for it. It could happen. I mean, there are Jews who would like to see the temple built, and I can’t argue that they never will be able to do so. It’s not something that most of the people in Israel have any interest in because most of the people in Israel today are not religious. and building a temple would have no interest to them at all. Only less than 20% of the population of Israel, of the Jewish people there, are Jewish by faith. The rest are secular. And those who are Jewish by faith, most of them do not care about building a temple. So, you know, it probably won’t happen, but if it does, that’s fine. The Bible doesn’t mention it. There’s many things that happen in history that the Bible didn’t bother to mention because they’re not part of God’s prescribed plan to rebuild the temple would be of no value in terms of God because the temple was destroyed because the temple had no value to God once Jesus died and rose again there’s no need for any more sacrifices and temples have no value except as places to offer sacrifices at least that’s true of the Jewish temple I think it’s true of temples in most religions but anyway if the temple was to be rebuilt in Jerusalem there’d be no reason for it except to offer animal sacrifices and And they would have no value to God. This would be actually done in rebellion against God because God ended the temple system and fulfilled it in Christ. And if the Jews, of course, today they do reject Christ for the most part. If they built the temple, they’re just thumbing their nose at Jesus and saying, you’re not the sacrifice. We don’t look to you as a sacrifice for us. We’re going to do blood of bulls and goats again. Which is ridiculous. Now, is Israel a fulfillment of prophecy that would point to us being in the end times? All I can say is I don’t know of any Bible prophecy at all that speaks of anything that’s going on in Israel today or identifies it as a sign of the end times. It’s not that I’m unaware of the prophecies. I’m aware of all of them very much. But I’m also aware of their context. And I don’t think there’s any prophecy in the Bible that I’m aware of that speaks of modern Israel in the present time. so that would answer your other question. Hey, I need to take a break. We have another half hour coming, so we’re not done. I need to let our listeners know that we pay a lot of money to the radio stations to carry this program. We’re on 80-something stations across the nation, and we’re listener-supported. If you’d like to help us, you can write to The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593, or go to thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 08 :
Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. Welcome to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Steve has nothing to sell you today but everything to give you. When the radio show is over, go to thenarrowpath.com where you can study, learn, and enjoy with free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. We thank you for supporting the listeners supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. See you at thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 01 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for another half hour. Taking your calls if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or want to register some point of disagreement you have with the host, always welcome to do that on our time. The number to call is 844-484-5737. There’s only one line open right now on our switchboard. Feel free to take it. The number is 844-484-5737. Our next call comes from Cody in Baytown, Texas. Hi, Cody. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Steve. Good to speak with you. Yes. Recently I was listening to Michael Heiser, an excerpt from one of his videos, and he was addressing a talk he had with someone who was concerned about that they were living in adultery. Anyway, the example he gave was Jesus in Luke 4 quoting or referring to Elijah being sent to the widow in Zarephath and then to Naaman being cleansed of leprosy. by elisha the prophet and anyway he his example of these were two you know jesus gave these two uh examples of pagans basically and the people you know in the town there uh were obviously upset at jesus example but anyway uh in second kings chapter five where the story of maimon And, you know, once he cleanses of leprosy, he says, hey, you know, now I know that there’s no God besides the God of Israel. And he asks for soil to return, you know, to bring soil back. But he does give, he asks Elisha, he says, grant me this, that when my master goes into, you know, the temple of Rimon, I think, their God, he says, forgive me when I bow down. And, you know, Elisha says, hey, go in peace. Like, basically, it’s allowed. And I’m just, you know, that’s kind of strange. I just kind of wanted to get your thoughts on that because it’s, you know.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay. I’m curious how that was applied to the man who was afraid that he was living in adultery. But if you’re just wondering about that case with Elisha and Naaman, I believe what Naaman was saying is, you know, I realize that this God, that my master worships is not a real God. And I don’t, in my heart, I don’t worship him. But it’s my obligation, my job to go in and kind of kneel by him to support him while he kneels. And, you know, I’d rather not do it. But since I don’t really worship that God and I know the real God, is it okay if I do that? And the prophet gave him leave to do it. Now, basically, I think the reason was because… The position of your body is not what determines if you’re really worshiping. It’s the position of your heart. And so to be there in the temple of Rimon and to not have any worshipfulness toward him except that you happen to be on one knee… which is innocent enough as long as it’s not, in your mind, anything to do with worshiping anyone. He let him go on that. But I’m curious, I mean, just because I’m not sure how it would be relevant, what was the application that Dr. Heiss was making?
SPEAKER 07 :
I thought I’d just sum it up quickly to give the details. But the kind of impression I got is, He gave two examples, two different people who were basically worried about their salvation. And it wasn’t just living in adultery. It was like married to someone who had a divorce. It was kind of like a, you know, it was like more of like a heart thing. And I think he gave this, the impression I got was he gave these two examples of Jesus living. referring to other pagans who had no idea of the rules and all the things to follow, but in their hearts they acknowledged God. And so the impression I got is Heiser was kind of saying it’s not that difficult to be a believer. If in your heart you really believe these right things. And I’ve always held, like you do, like kind of lordship salvation. I mean, you have Jesus saying many things to me, Lord, Lord, that doesn’t do the things I say. And, you know, the impression I got was he was kind of referring to these two. And it stood out because I’ve never thought about it that way. But he was saying, like, it’s easier, basically. You know, if your heart is right, then it doesn’t really matter if you’re doing all the correct things.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah. Well, I’d say that the point Jesus was making in Luke 4 is that Naaman had faith, as did the widow of Zarephath, and both of them had needs, and their needs were very similar to the needs of many in Israel who didn’t have faith. That is, he said there were many widows starving in the time of Elijah in Israel, but God didn’t send Elijah any of them but to the widow of Zarephath, and of course his presence in her home caused her to be fed for the whole famine. So he took care of a widow who was a Gentile, And we know the story enough to know that she had faith in Yahweh. And then, you know, he said, and there were many lepers in the days of Elisha in Israel. But none of them were healed except Naaman, who was not a Jew, a Gentile. So Jesus is giving examples of Gentiles who had faith, even in the Old Testament, receiving blessing from God ahead of Jews who didn’t have faith. So he’s pointing out that it’s having faith, not your race, that determines whether God approves of you. Neither of these cases are cases where God saved someone or didn’t because of their behavior. This is simply talking about the fact that they were Gentiles and because they had the faith to be saved, they were helped. Now, of course… there are people like, I mean, many Gentiles, many pagans, who don’t know much about what God requires. Some of those may include people who’ve been married multiple times without knowing that God doesn’t approve of that, okay? So maybe that’s what he was saying, is some of these people did things ignorantly, and, you know, where men are really ignorant, in times of ignorance, God winks, it says in Acts 17. But to say God winked, That may simply mean that God doesn’t charge them harshly with it. It may go more lightly for them in the judgment. Because Jesus also said in Luke, That servant who knew his master’s will and didn’t do it will be beaten with many stripes. But that servant who didn’t know his master’s will and did things worthy of stripes will be beaten with few stripes. So there’s a lighter penalty. There’s more grace extended, I suppose, to the person who is not deliberately rebelling against God. And there’s no doubt many people in sin do. who don’t know the difference between one thing and another in terms of what God requires, because they just grew up ignorant. So, I mean, I’m going to say that on the day of judgment, God may be, and I think based on what Jesus said, God will be more lenient in judgment on people whose disobedience was essentially ignorant. But that’s not making a case for tolerating disobedience when we know of it. You know, if a man says, well, I’m afraid that I’m in adultery because I stole my neighbor’s wife and she divorced him and married me. Well, yeah, you probably are in adultery now. I’m not going to say, well, but some people who don’t know any better, you know, God might turn a blind eye. Well, but you do know better. That’s why you’re bringing it up. You know, the reason you’re feeling guilty about it is you know better. And therefore, I would say, certainly when you know that you’ve done the wrong thing, repentance is required. And if repentance is required, sometimes when you repent of certain sins, it is, in fact, possible to go back and make restitution. And when it is possible, it is expected. By restitution, I mean if you steal money from somebody and then you repent of stealing it, well, you return the money to them. Even if you’ve already spent it, you don’t have it. You set up a plan to pay them back in installments or whatever because the fact that you stole money from them doesn’t change because you repented in your heart before God. they are still injured by the loss. And so if you’re truly repentant, you want to make restitution. You want to undo the injury. Now, if a man, let’s just say a man stole his neighbor’s wife, seduced her, caused her to leave her husband and took her. Well, what happens when he repents? Well, okay, he’s got to repent because that’s a sin. But what does restitution look like? Well, if the woman’s original husband is a faithful husband, Desiring to have her stolen, she sent her back. Now, of course, there are situations where, and by the way, that happened to David and Michal, his wife. She was taken against his will by Saul and given to another man named Paltiel. But when David came to power, he required her to come back. Even though she was married to someone else, she was not legitimately married to someone else. She had been taken against David’s will and stolen from him and given to another man. Well, that’s not okay. She’s still his wife, apparently, according to God. And so he gets her back. Now, so that’s, you know, that’s restitution. Now, let’s just take a case where the man in question who’s talking to Michael Heiser did, you know, take somebody else’s wife wrongfully and is married to her. And he wants to make it right. And making it right, to make it ideal would be that she goes back to her husband, but But let’s say he’s not available. He’s died or he’s remarried or he doesn’t want her back or he’s been sleeping with other people. And that was all those things really free her from that. And so, you know, if restitution cannot actually legitimately be made. in a case like that, then none is required. Restitution, you don’t do restitution in order to get forgiveness. God forgives because we repent. It’s just that if we really are repentant, we will insist on making any restitution we can. Because repentance means, I’m really sorry I did that. I want to undo that if possible. I want to undo the damage I’ve caused. But when you can’t undo it, when there’s no restitution that can be made, well then, I believe your repentance can be genuine without there being restitution simply because you would, but you can’t. And I don’t think God requires it in such a case. So situations are different from each other and complex. But I wouldn’t just say to a man, well, if he says, well, I’m afraid I’ve committed adultery by marrying a woman that really belongs to another man. I wouldn’t say, oh, well, God can overlook that kind of thing. Well, that’s not the message. The message, a person being discipled is being told to obey everything that Jesus commanded and is not being told how much they can get away with not doing so. Now, the man in question who is guilty may indeed, you know, not be able to make restitution, in which case there’s not much he can do except be sorry and repentant about the deal, in which case I don’t think he remains guilty to stay in the marriage because he’s got no other option except that he and she just live single, which I know some Christians who would say, well, that’s what they should do. They should be penalized for what they did. Now, the Bible is not interested in penalizing people for doing wrong things. That’s what Jesus came to avoid. Jesus came to to do all he could to spare us who love him and who follow him of penalties for what we did. But, you know, undoing wrong things that we have caused, if we can, is simply the obvious evidence that we really are serious about being righteous and following God. Anyway, yeah, I’m interested that Michael Heiser would make that reply. I don’t think it’s, I mean, I don’t know everything about the story, of course. I don’t know all that the man said. Maybe if I knew more about it, I’d say, oh, yeah, I can see why Michael Heiser would say that. But I can’t because I don’t know enough of the story. But I hope that helps you, Cody. We’re going to talk to Jimmy in Stanton Island, New York. And by the way, Our lines were full pretty much a few minutes ago, and some of the callers dropped off. I guess they got tired of waiting, so there’s quite a few lines open now. If you’d like to get through, we have 15 minutes more, and we’ve got some lines open at 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Jimmy, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, Steve. Thank you. In Genesis 2, when God brought the law in 2.16, and God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, or dying thou shalt die. Now, two questions. What exactly do you believe transpired that day with Adam And do you believe this death passed onto his progeny, that were in his loins? Because the Bible teaches that progeny is present in the loins. And according to Hebrews 9, Levi paid tithes in Abraham. So God looks at it that the whole human race was actually in Adam. That’s what I believe. But I just want to get your take on what exactly transpired that day. And do you believe that death? I believe the death happened. All right.
SPEAKER 01 :
Appreciate it, Jimmy. Yeah, the passage in Hebrews actually about Melchizedek is chapter 7 of Hebrews. The whole chapter is about Melchizedek. But people sometimes give that illustration because, you know, the writer of Hebrews is saying… When Melchizedek paid, when Abram paid tithes to Melchizedek, this was before either Isaac or Jacob or any of the sons of Jacob were born. Abram still didn’t have children at this time. And so, you know, all of the people who would descend from Abraham later were still in him. And that would include the Levites who came from Levi, his great grandson. Now, it’s saying that in a sense, Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham doing so. And that’s because Levi had not been born from Abraham yet. And all he’s really saying is Abraham had a higher status than his son and grandson and great-grandson. And yet Abraham showed deference to Melchizedek. And in so doing, Levi, who is of a lesser status than Abraham himself, was also showing deference. It’s a figure of speech, but it’s not exactly the same kind as people often talk about when they say we sinned in Adam. Because they’re saying, you see, the writer of Hebrews is not saying, you know, it’s a virtuous thing. that Abram did by paying tribute to Melchizedek. And therefore, the credit for that virtue, for that virtue of saying, you know, Levi gets the credit for that, too. Now, that’s not the point he’s making. The point he’s making is the Levites are the ones usually who receive tithes. But here it is clear that they were inferior to Melchizedek, who was receiving tithes. Why were they inferior? They weren’t even born yet, but they were in Abram, and he gave tithes to Melchizedek. So, in a sense, Levi was too. He’s not talking about how the virtue or vice of Abram’s action is anyhow passed down to Levi. It’s not the point he’s making. He’s making the point that Levi is a lesser man in status than his great-great-grandfather, and yet his great-great-grandfather paid tithes to Melchizedek. which means that Melchizedek is superior not only to Abram, but to all his offering, including the Levites. Therefore, the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood. That’s what the writer is saying. But again, this is not the same idea as the Augustinian idea, which says that we were all in Adam, so when he said we all sinned too, and therefore the guilt of his sin is passed down to each of us. I don’t know of anything in the Bible that says that. I know that Romans 5.12 is often the verse that is given to prove this, but actually Augustine, who came up with this doctrine actually, derived it from Romans 5.12, but he was reading Romans 5.12 in the Latin because Augustine did not read Greek. That is, he didn’t read the original languages of the New Testament. He read the Vulgate. And in the Vulgate, it says that, you know, people have sinned in Adam. Where in the Greek it says they all sinned themselves. There’s a line in Romans. Romans 5.12, it says, in whom all sinned, meaning in Adam. But that’s in Latin. In the Greek, it says, because all sinned. Death passed on men because all sinned. So in the Greek, it doesn’t actually make the point that Augustine made. He made a mistake because he didn’t know Greek, and he read Latin only. And that’s the only verse that really even seems to say something like that. The idea has passed into… certainly Protestant theology, because of the strong Augustinian slant of both Luther and Augustinian monk. and of Calvin, an Augustine theologian. So, obviously, the Augustinian idea has become kind of built in. It’s kind of baked in to the Protestant Reformation theology. But does the Bible actually teach it? Well, I’d have to find, have someone show me a verse where it teaches. That’s the problem. It doesn’t. The Bible doesn’t teach it anywhere. Is it nonetheless true? Well… It could be, but if it is, the Bible doesn’t tell us it is. In a sense, it’s somewhat counterintuitive. If I robbed a bank, it doesn’t mean that my grandson is born guilty of me robbing a bank, or my great-grandson, or even my son, or anyone else but me. If I rob the bank, that’s me that’s guilty, not anyone who will later be descended from me. In fact, it says in Ezekiel 18, the son will not be held responsible for his father’s sins. That’s a general rule, a general principle. In Deuteronomy, there is a law that said you cannot punish a son for his father’s sins. So guilt is individual. We don’t read anywhere in the Bible of a son being punished for a sin that he was not involved in personally. simply because his father was. I mean, that’s forbidden in Scripture, and the Bible indicates God doesn’t follow that rule. So I don’t think that people are guilty of what Adam did, since they weren’t around to make any decisions about it or even to know about it. But did the penalty pass down to us? Yes, the penalty of death did. All sin. And we all sin because Adam did. Now, what’s that mean? I’m sorry, all die. We all die because we all sin, the Bible says. As I understand it, we all sin because we’re selfish. And because if we’re born alienated from God, separated from God, there’s nothing to overcome that selfishness. So we fall into selfish behavior, and it’s our nature to do so. By the way, it’s animals’ nature to act for themselves, too. But they’re not guilty of anything because acting for yourself is instinctive. But humans are expected to not do that because they’re supposed to submit to God and be in a relation with God where that kind of behavior is checked and overcome. But the death part, when he says the day you eat of it, you’ll die. Well, the day they ate of it, they were cut off from the tree of life. If they had not been cut off from the tree of life, the Bible says in Genesis 3, they could have eaten of it and lived forever. They weren’t created immortal, but they were created potentially immortal. They had access to the tree of life. If they ate the tree of life, they would live forever, it says. If they didn’t eat of it, they wouldn’t. So eternal life was not built into them biologically at the time they were created. In fact, it says in 1 Timothy 6.16, God alone possesses immortality. Immortality was not a part of a feature. of any created being, including man. But it was offered graciously to man through the tree of life, which if man had stayed on good terms with God, he would have stayed accessible to the tree of life and would have lived forever. It’s not natural that people would live forever, but God would have supernaturally extended their lives forever in terms of their continued relationship with him, which gave them the privilege of accessing the tree of life. But they didn’t. They did the wrong thing, so they were cut off from it that very day. And that was their death. That is, that was their death sentence. They didn’t die that very day. But the language, in the day you eat of it, you’ll die, is exactly like the language that Solomon said to a man who had insulted his father. And Solomon said, well, I’m not going to kill you right now. You go back and stay in your village. But the day you leave your village, know that you shall surely die. Now, the man did leave his village and he did die, but not that very day. But the day he left is when the death sentence, you know, applied. And he soon died afterwards. So it’s a figure of speech. When Solomon said, know that the day you leave that city of yours, you’ll die that day. Well, he didn’t die that day, but he was under the penalty of death that day. And that’s what the words mean, I believe. And the penalty of death came, Adam, not because God imposed a new phenomenon called mortality that they didn’t possess before. I believe they already possessed mortality. What happened was they were deprived of the access to immortality. which they could have had if they had eaten the tree of life. Now, has that passed down to us? Yes. Because we don’t live in the garden. Because Adam and Eve were thrust out. Every human being was born outside the garden and away from the tree of life. And therefore, that availability of immortality was taken from us. It is restored in Christ. Christ is the new tree of life. Jesus said, whoever eats me, eats my flesh and drinks my blood, will have everlasting life. So, you know it’s again conditional we don’t have immortality But if we partake of Christ, if we abide in Christ, then his eternal life is shared with us, and we have eternal life in him, the Bible says. So that’s how I understand those things. If it’s otherwise than that, there’s nothing in the Bible that really tells us so. Augustine told us so, but he lived around the year 400 A.D., and no one before him said anything like that about it, so it must not be very obvious in the Bible, even if some people think they find it there. Faye in Hawaii, we don’t have much time, I’m sorry to say, but go ahead.
SPEAKER 08 :
Oh, hi. Thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to ask you what you thought about people being called minister as a title.
SPEAKER 01 :
I’m not in favor of titles unless they describe what the person does. For example, I might call a man an electrician if that’s what he is, if that’s what he does, you know. Now, minister literally means servant. If the man is a servant, then he is a minister. And if we describe him as that, that’d be fine. The problem is the word minister today in modern English doesn’t convey the idea of a servant to everybody. Some people think a minister means a high-ranking church official who’s kind of in charge of the organization. Well, that’s hardly true. I mean, that’s the opposite of what the word servant would convey. And yet minister and servant are the same word. So to call somebody a minister in a context where people know that that means a servant… Well, that’s fine if he is a servant. Pastor means shepherd. If somebody is a shepherd, if somebody is shepherds, then I don’t have any problem describing them that. Now, to make that a title is a different story. Jesus didn’t want his disciples to be called by titles because titles suggest rank or suggest elite, special status and privilege. And Jesus didn’t want us encouraging that kind of attitude. So I don’t care for titles at all. Like I said, I mean, if you call me a teacher, well, I do teach. That’s what I do. But don’t call me teacher. Don’t call me teacher Steve. Just just, you know, I acknowledge I teach if someone says I’m a teacher. That’s just descriptive. It’s not some kind of a title. Some people have titles. Some people like titles. I wouldn’t like to have a title, and I don’t think Jesus encouraged us to want titles. So a lot of times when you call someone a minister, I guess the question is, what are you doing? Are you describing what they do? Or are you speaking of them having some kind of a rank, as the word minister might suggest in some contexts in some churches? Shouldn’t, but sometimes does. I’m out of time. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener supported. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. You can donate from there if you want to.
