Menu
Join Steve Gregg on The Narrow Path as he tackles intriguing questions surrounding the interpretation of biblical texts. The episode kicks off with a deep dive into Hebrews 2.7, where callers bring up debates about whether the passage refers solely to Jesus or to humanity as a whole. Steve analyzes the scriptural context and its implications for understanding the nature of mankind and divinity. The conversation then transitions into the complexities within 1 Corinthians 3, where discussions focus on building upon the foundation of Christ and the responsibilities of church leaders to nurture a lasting spiritual community.
SPEAKER 05 :
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 raise for conversation on the air concerning the Bible or the Christian faith, anything related to such things or any concerns that might be relevant to Christianity, perhaps disagreements you have with the Bible or with Christianity, problems you’ve got with it, feel free to call. We’ll be glad to talk about any such things with you in this coming hour. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. All right, and we’re going to go directly to the phones now and talk to Paul in Buffalo, New York. Hi, Paul. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. I’ve got a quick question and a quick balancing comment. Okay. My question is, there’s a little home church that I’ve been attending, and I wasn’t there for this one, but I heard it secondhand that they got all discussing a lot and disagreeing on Hebrews 2.7. whether that applies exclusively to Jesus or to all of us.
SPEAKER 05 :
About the Son of Man.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. And then my balancing comment is on 1 Corinthians 3, 11 through 14, I believe it applies to all born-again believers, and I think the surrounding verses can be understood in the sense that he’s addressing the specific problem that they had to settle on building on the foundation about favoring one teacher over another. And I’ll listen off the air for you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, but would you mind staying on long enough just for me to ask for clarity on the second question? Go ahead. I mean, you’ve heard what I say, apparently, because you say you’re balancing my comment. I’m not sure what it is you’re saying differently than what I say, just so I know.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, you were applying the foundation, wood, hay, stubble, gold, silver, precious jewels to teachers.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, that’s himself and Apollos, yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right, and I’m saying, no, it’s all born-again believers, and those verses surrounding it are addressing the specific problem that Paul wants to avoid having on the foundation, which was division with favoring one teacher over another.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, you’re certainly right in that last comment, but I believe that he has a very specific object in verses 11 through 14, which I’ll get to, but I appreciate you clarifying that. I’ll take your first question, then I’ll come back to this one.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thank you, Steve.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thank you, Paul. All right. Well, you first asked about Hebrews 2.7. Now, Hebrews 2.7 is a quotation from Psalm 8.4 through 6. And so, actually, it’s part of a quotation. It’s verses 6 through 8 of Hebrews 2 quotes these three verses in Psalm 8, verses 4 through 6. The quotation says, What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you take care of him? You made him a little lower than the angels. You crowned him with glory and honor. You set him over the works of your hands. You put all things in subjection under his feet. Now, you’re saying some people in your home fellowship believe this is referring only to Jesus and others believe it’s referring to humanity in general. Well, it is a quotation from Psalm 2, which is about humanity in general. It says, what is man? You know, that’s what is humanity. Or the son of man. Now, some might think, well, by mentioning the son of man, he’s now transitioned from mankind in general to specifically Jesus, who so frequently referred to himself under the title the son of man. However, the Old Testament does not really refer to Jesus as the son of man. There’s one passage in the Old Testament, Daniel chapter 7, I think it’s verses 13 through 12, 13, something like that, where it says, I saw one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. And it’s clearly a reference to Jesus, though it doesn’t call him the son of man as if it’s a title, but rather one like a son of man, which means like a human. In Hebrew idiom, son of man. And virtually always simply means a human being. And in the poetry of the Old Testament, of which Psalm 2 would be an example, Psalm 8, excuse me, would be an example. Parallelism usually is the phenomenon of saying the same thing twice in different words. So he says, what is man? that you think about him? What is the son of man that you visit him? The idea, the two statements are intended to be equal, just a repetition of the same thought. Every man, apart from Adam, himself. Every man is also the son of another man. So a son of man simply means a son of Adam, a part of the human race. And you’ll find, if you look up the word son of man in the Old Testament, the phrase, every time, every single time, it’s a reference to simply a human being. Now, of course, the case in Daniel, I mentioned, where it says, I saw one like the Son of Man, or like a Son of Man coming. This is in contrast to what he saw previously in the same vision. He saw four animals, and they represented kingdoms. A lion represented the Babylonian Empire. A bear represented the Medo-Persian Empire. A leopard representing the Grecian Empire. And then some kind of nondescript, monstrous, ten-horned beast represented the Roman Empire. Now, all of these look like animals. Then he says, then I saw one like a human. In contrast to the other kingdoms that were likened to animals, this one was like a man, like a human, like a son of man, as opposed to the son of a lion or the son of a leopard. So I personally believe that even in Daniel, where it is, in fact, referring to Jesus or at least to his kingdom, It is not specifically using Son of Man as a messianic title, per se, nor does anything else in the Old Testament use it that way. So, in the Psalm 8, where David says, what is man and what is the Son of Man, he’s saying the same thing twice. He’s talking about humans. Now, why does the Rite of Hebrews bring this up here? Obviously, in chapter 1 and 2 of Hebrews, there’s a whole bunch of Old Testament passages being quoted in rapid succession, And they are all being applied to Jesus. And, of course, his point in these two chapters is to say, God never talked this way to anyone but Jesus. God never talked this way even to angels. He never said this kind of stuff to angels. You are my son, this day I have begotten you. Or, I will be a father to him and he shall be a son to me. Or any of that kind of stuff. He quotes all these Old Testament passages about Jesus. And he says, God never talked to angels that way. But then, in verse 5, He says of chapter two, for he has not put the world to come of which we speak in subjection to angels. But one testified in a certain place, what is man that you’re mindful of him and you put everything under his feet. And then it says at the end of verse eight, for in him, in that he put all in subjection under him. He left nothing that is not man. put under him. But we now do not see all things put under him. As far as we know, the hymn throughout this is the same hymn as in the psalm, mankind. We don’t see everything subjected to mankind yet. But we do have a man, a representative of our race, whom God has put all things under his feet. He says, we do see Jesus. We don’t see everything put under mankind yet, but we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, just like man was, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, might taste death for every one. So he does say that Jesus is not an angel. He’s a man. And God did not give the planet to angels. He gave it to men. And therefore, although we don’t see men ruling the planet perfectly, we don’t have control, for example, over all the wild animals and the sea and the weather and things like that, yet there is one man who does. There’s one man who has been crowned with glory and honor. There’s one man who’s given total power. rulership over everything and that’s one of our race that’s a son of man like we are sons of men in fact this is I think one of the things that Jesus was emphasizing when he called himself son of man was that he’s a real son of Adam like we are he’s also the son of God but he is what happens when God takes on literal human nature and becomes one of us and so he did become one of us because it wouldn’t do him any good to become an angel because angels don’t have any destiny to rule the world. Men do. When God made man, that is Adam, it was after God said, let’s make man in our own image and let’s give him dominion over everything, over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all that stuff. And man was created for dominion. But we lost it through our disobedience. But Jesus, one of us, and God deliberately became one of us for this very purpose. He could recover man’s inheritance. he could recover for the whole race just as Adam lost it for the race. Jesus, as one of us, regained it for us. And it would do no good to be an angel. He had to be a man. And that’s what he’s saying. God didn’t give the world to come to angels. He gave it to men, which is why Jesus had to become a man in order to get it, you know, to qualify for it. But in quoting Psalm 2, I don’t believe there’s any hint that he’s talking about Jesus, other than in the sense that Jesus is a son of man like the rest of us, but it is because of his role as a human, as a son of Adam, as a son of man, that he is able to stand as our human representative to conquer back for the race those things which Adam lost for the race. So he’s the second Adam. So, in other words, there would be no occasion probably for the writer of Hebrews to quote this psalm unless he was going to make the point that Jesus became a man and by that has been crowned and put into the position that man’s destiny is supposed to be. But the quotation itself is the same about humans in general. In fact, in the part of the psalm that comes right after the quoted portion, He talks about he gave dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and so forth, which is true. God made Adam and all humanity the lords of the created realm. It’s just that because of the fall, we have lost control of much of it. But Jesus has regained it. So that’s what I see there. Now, you brought up 1 Corinthians 3, and many people may not know that passage, but the first three chapters, even the first four chapters, of 1 Corinthians are in the setting of a controversy in the church of Corinth that there were loyalties, the church leaders had loyalties to different teachers or church leaders. Paul had planted the church, so there’s arguably some people loyal to him. Some people thought Peter was a more important leader because he kind of was leading the church in Jerusalem at the time, and he was one of the twelve. And then there was Apollos who had come and left. And Paul was a very impressive speaker and had probably made some more converts and even maybe won over the loyalty of some of the ones who had followed Paul. And Jesus, excuse me, when Paul writes the first chapter, he points out this is a problem in the church. Some of you are saying I’m of Paul or Apollos or I’m of Peter or I’m of Christ. He says you’re all of Christ. But who is Paul and who is Apollos? And that’s what he asks in chapter 3, verse 5. Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos? But ministers through whom you believed as the Lord gave to each one. So Paul and Apollos are leaders who God used to bring these people to faith, to plant the church. And he says in verse 6, I planted, Apollos watered, and God gave the increase. Now what he’s saying is, Apollos and I both are workers on the same project. It’s God’s God is the one who gives the increase. We don’t get any credit for that. But each of us has played a small role. I planted seeds. I left Corinth. Apollos came and his ministry essentially watered those seeds and helped them to grow. Great. That’s a good thing. But he says in verse 8, he who plants and he who waters are one. That is to say, we’re not really in competition with each other. We’re on the same crew. We’re working together here. And he says, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. Who are? Apollos and himself. He hasn’t changed subjects yet. He says, Apollos and I are God’s fellow workers. You, meaning the church of Corinth, are God’s field. You are God’s building. Now, he says, okay, let’s talk about the relationship Paul and Apollos have to the church in Corinth. Well, the church of Corinth is God’s field. He’s growing crops there. Paul came and planted seeds there. Apollos watered and God’s bring crops. Okay, so the church is the field where these men have labored. The church is also the building under construction, and these men have labored on that too. In fact, it’s the same point made with a different metaphor. The church is a field growing. It is also a building under construction. Now, seeing it as a field, Paul got there first and planted the seeds. Apollos came and worked in the field and watered, and there was increase. Now let’s shift the metaphor to a building, because that’s what Paul does. He says, you are God’s field, you are God’s building. Verse 10, according to the grace of God which was given to me as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. In other words, it’s just like when he’s talking about the church as a field. I, Paul, came, I planted the seeds, another came and watered the seeds. Okay, shift the metaphor. Let’s say the church is a building. I laid the foundation. That’s like planting the seeds in the field. Another comes and he builds on that foundation. That’s like Apollos coming in water. But then he says, but let each one take heed how he builds on it. Now, who’s building here? The leaders, Paul and Apollos and others. They’re coming to edify the church with their ministries. Make sure you don’t build badly when you’re building God’s building. Make sure you don’t sow wrong seeds or badly care for the seeds if it’s God’s field. He’s saying, Apollos and I both have responsibilities here. Analogous to a man planting seeds in another water or laying a foundation building in another building. These two are parallel metaphors. Now he says in verse 12, now if anyone, verse 11, excuse me, for no other foundation can anyone lay. than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now, what’s he talking about? He’s saying that he came and laid the foundation. What’s that mean? He came to Corinth, which had no Christians, and he preached the gospel. And the first converts were the foundation of the church there. That is, they were built on the foundation of Paul’s preaching, which was Christ. He built on Christ as the foundation and laid the foundation of the church there. He says no one can found a different foundation, which is a way of saying, When Apollos came after he was gone, he didn’t lay another foundation, start another building. No, we’re both building on the one. There’s no other foundation to the church. It’s all Jesus Christ. Whoever may come afterwards is still going to either build on that foundation or they’re not building at all. No one can build a different foundation for the church when it’s already laid on Christ. So all that visiting ministers like Apollos can do is to build on the one foundation. that uh that paul laid there which was christ and he says verse 12 if anyone builds on this foundation with gold silver or precious stones which obviously is good or with wood hay and straw which is not good each one’s work will become manifest for the day will declare it because it will be revealed with fire and the fire will test each one’s work what sort it is now by the way back when he was talking about the field metaphor in him and Apollos. He said in verse 8, Now he’s talking about a minister’s reward for his ministerial labor. He’s talking about himself and Apollos there. And he’s saying, Apollos and I will each be rewarded for the part we did. And he’s saying the same thing now that he’s shifted the metaphor to that of a building. He says in verse 12, you know, verse 13, each one’s work will become manifest. It will be declared, revealed by fire. The fire will test each one’s work, what sort it is. If anyone’s work, which he has built on it, endures, he’ll receive a reward. So, again, if Apollos is doing good work, he’ll receive a reward for it. If I’m doing good work, I’ll receive good work. But we’re building something that’s going to be tested by fire. What’s that? It’s the church. The church is tested by fire. to be sure, because there’s persecution. There’s hatred from the enemy and from the world. The testing sometimes causes weak converts to fall out and defect. But will the whole church defect? It depends. Did they build it out of good stuff that can endure fire? Now, what can endure fire in the metaphor? Well, Peter said in 1 Peter 2, 5, that we are living stones built up into a spiritual house, okay? Stones pretty much will endure fire, you know, at least some fire. So stones, wood, hay, stubble won’t endure. If you build a house that’s not out of stone, not out of gold, silver, or precious stones, you’re building something that when it’s tested, it won’t endure. To my mind, a person is a preacher here, a teacher, somebody who’s building the building. The building is the church. He never identified the building as an individual person. He said the church is the field and the church is the building, and we’ve got to understand the roles of Paul and Apollos, respectively, in these two metaphors. But if a man is building the church with his preaching, and he’s preaching a watered-down gospel, and he’s getting people to join the church, who have not really been fully converted. You’ve got a structure there, but it’s not an enduring structure. And when tests come, they generally speaking will burn. They won’t stay with you. Their work will be burned up. There won’t be a church there anymore. At least there won’t be lasting fruit if you didn’t build with the good stuff. What is the good stuff? The good stuff is true converts, living stones. You know, when you build with living stones, stones will put up, will survive resistance for a long time. So that’s what he’s talking about. I don’t think he’s talking about individuals here. That is, I realize what you’re saying, because I was raised myself in a church that had the idea that what he’s saying is, you know, no man can lay another foundation than what is laid, meaning when you got converted, you know, A foundation was laid in your life, which is Jesus. And then, of course, you build on that foundation by doing, you know, good stuff or bad stuff, by being a good Christian or not so good a Christian. And, you know, when Jesus comes back, you’ll be tested. And if you weren’t a very good Christian, then all the stuff you did will not be lasting of value. But he does talk later about the man may be saved, yet is by fire. If a man builds a church and he doesn’t build a lasting church, well, then he may be saved. I’m sure many pastors who’ve done poorly in preaching the gospel, but have done the best they knew, I guess, are saved. But they often have built works that are works of the flesh or, you know, otherwise not enduring things. So I just see Paul, I mean, you can take it into context and see what you want. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just saying each person can look at the context and say, well, what is Paul describing here? What’s he talking about? He is talking about different ministers and their status in the church. And saying, you know, neither Paul nor Apollos are very important in themselves. It’s God’s church. God, you know, if I plant seeds in some of those waters, then nothing’s going to happen unless God gives the increase. On the other hand, if I lay a foundation that’s going to build on it, it will not last unless God’s in it. Remember, it says in Psalm 127, unless the Lord builds a house, they labor in vain that build it. Paul’s saying, I’m laboring here. So is Apollos. We’re laborers on the same crew. It’s God’s house. But each one is going to be judged for how well they did and what kind of a lasting structure they built. And I believe that Paul, he doesn’t say so unambiguously because I don’t think he wants to be critical of Apollos. I think he’s thinking in his own mind and perhaps thinking that the discerning among his readers will see. Apollos came with enticing words of men’s wisdom. That’s why Paul, in contrasting himself from Apollos, In chapter 2, I didn’t come with enticing words of man’s wisdom. I didn’t want your faith to rest on the wisdom of man. I came with a demonstration of the spirit and power. Now, I personally believe that he doesn’t say it because he doesn’t want to be critical, but the implication is that’s not really how Apollos did things. There’s some evidence in 1 Corinthians that Paul’s a little bit irritated with what Apollos has done or what Apollos is doing, though he sees him as a genuine minister. and fellow workers, so he doesn’t want to undermine him. But there’s little bits of hints about, I think, his annoyance with some things that have resulted from Apollo’s coming, including the divisions in the church that have come. At the end of the book, he says, I strongly urged Apollos to come to you at this time, but he says he can’t, but he will when he wants to. Now, I mean, he doesn’t say he has a good excuse for not coming. He’s really, really busy with something he can’t get away from. He says he’ll come when he wants to. He’ll come when he wants, you know, and I strongly urged him to come. But he just kind of brushed me off and he’ll come when he wants to. He doesn’t say anything bad about the man. It just doesn’t sound like he’s. entirely wanting to push Apollos into great prominence with them, because he is, the coming of Apollos did bring about, you know, as it were, a competition Paul was not interested in, and some occasion of the church, you know, being divided. Anyway, that’s how I see 1 Corinthians chapter 3. I used to see it another way because I was taught another way, but, you know, When you’re forced, as I was back even back in the 70s, to teach verse by verse through the entire Bible, you have to kind of follow the train of thought. And eventually you see things that you didn’t see when people were just quoting individual verses to you to make a theological point they wanted to press. God bless you. I’ve taken a long time. You had two good questions. They took a while. We’re going to take a break here in just a minute. We have lots of calls waiting, and we’ll have another half hour to go through them. You’re listening to The Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. We are a listener-supported ministry. That’s why we don’t take commercial breaks. Even this break at the bottom of the hour we take every day, there’s no commercials. We’re selling nothing. We’ve got nothing for sale for you. But we do think it’s important for you to know that there’s great expenses in the ministry, and all those expenses are what we pay to radio stations. We’re on 80-some-odd radio stations across the country. Some of them charge us over $1,000 a day. Some charge us several thousand dollars a day. That’s just the cost of doing business on radio. And yet we have no sponsors and we have no underwriters. We’ve been doing this for going on 29 years now. And God has provided through people, well, like some of you, who think it’s a good program to have on the air for people. So they help. If you want to help, like that, feel free. I guarantee you that whether you do or not, it will have no impact on my personal finances. I don’t take anything and no one else does from this ministry. There’s all volunteers here. We’ve got no paid staff. But we do direct all contributions to pay for airtime because, well, we’d like to offer for free this service to as many people as possible. You can write to us at the address The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. That address again is The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can donate from the website. Now, the website’s loaded with resources. Everything is free there. And just because it’s free doesn’t mean it’s worthless. It’s of great value. Check it out. Thenarrowpath.com. You can donate there if you want, but you don’t have to. Thenarrowpath.com. We have another half hour coming. Don’t go away. I’ll be back in 30 seconds.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 05 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. And if you’d like to be on the air right now, the phone lines are full. You can try a little later. The number is 844-484-5737. All right. Our next call today comes from Corey in Portland, Oregon. Hi, Corey. Thanks for calling. Welcome. Hi, Steve.
SPEAKER 04 :
Watching a video of you yesterday, you’re talking about the kingdom of God. And I’m wondering, what linguistic rule did you use to change the spatical meaning of the preposition inside to in the midst of in Luke 17, 21? Or is this An entirely theological view that you hold.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, no, I mean, in the King James Version, Luke 17, 20, Jesus said, The kingdom of God is within you. There is no modern translation that believes that’s the correct translation. You won’t find it, I don’t think, in any translation. Even the New King James, which rather slavishly follows the King James, has changed it, like all others have, to the kingdom of God is within you, meaning within this crowd, in your midst, among you, is really what it means. Now, either can be the meaning of the same word. It’s not uncommon in Greek or in English.
SPEAKER 04 :
I agree with that.
SPEAKER 05 :
In English or Greek, it’s not unusual to have a word that has more than one meaning. To say, in you, and you being… Pardon?
SPEAKER 04 :
Not intos. Intos has one meaning, and that’s it.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, then it’s interesting that none of the Greek scholars know this. I’m surprised none of the Greek scholars are aware of this.
SPEAKER 04 :
All the church fathers knew it. Before John Nelson Darby, there’s no record anywhere of intos meaning among or in the midst of. Among is not even a Greek word to begin with, and mesos is in the midst. Luke doesn’t use mesos here. He uses it before and after this chapter.
SPEAKER 05 :
All I can say is I’ve never claimed to be a Greek scholar, but I do claim… to be able to read Greek scholars and read translations. As far as I know, every translation of the Bible in the world, except for the New World Translation, which is Jehovah’s Witness, but the 20 or more that I’ve looked at, all the scholars believe that it should be translated in your midst, and it makes sense in the context. He’s talking to the Pharisees. He’s talking to the Pharisees. If he said the kingdom of God is inside of them, this would simply not be true. They are children of the devil, he said, elsewhere. All Pharisees are children of the devil. Pardon? All Pharisees are children of the devil. The ones who are challenging him, I think, were. But the point here is these were his enemies. These were his enemies. These were challenging him. Does he say that, that you are children of the devil, when he’s talking to him in verse 20, 21? In that passage, he doesn’t. He does in John chapter 8. So the point is he’s recognizing…
SPEAKER 04 :
I’m aware of that.
SPEAKER 05 :
I’m aware of what books these statements are found in. I’m also aware of what Jesus said to these people.
SPEAKER 04 :
You’re not following the rules of the Greek or English language. And I’m wondering if this is entirely theoretical, that would make sense. But the rules, the linguistic rules of Greek and English, you can’t do what you’re doing.
SPEAKER 05 :
Please tell me this. Tell me this. You have not told me what your credentials are. You might be a Greek scholar. But are your credentials better than those of all Greek translators?
SPEAKER 04 :
I have consulted with many Greek scholars. They’re classicists. They’re philologists. Okay. Because I wanted to know what this meant. So I didn’t go the religious route. I went the linguistic route. And this is what they say. And they say it’s impossible to get it to say this. It’s not possible. Okay.
SPEAKER 05 :
First of all, I’ve got nothing from Darby. I’ve got nothing from Darby on this subject. If indeed… this is not a possible way to understand the passage, then your argument is not with me, but with the Greek scholars that I have read, okay? So, I mean, I’d say maybe you can take up your complaint with the translators of the New American Standard or of the, you know, or the New King James or any modern Bible, okay? Oh, I see. You’re probably a King James only. I’m not sure. It hadn’t occurred to me until this moment. I’m assuming. Are you a King James only? Are you a King James only?
SPEAKER 04 :
Would you stop putting me on mute? You did this to me last time, and then you hung up on me. I’m going to do it again, too.
SPEAKER 05 :
Listen, I’m going to do it again.
SPEAKER 04 :
I’m not a King James only guy.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hey, look, you’re gone. You’re gone. I’m so sorry. I would love to have had a conversation with you. In my definition, I know I use English and Greek differently than you do, I suppose. In my English definition, a conversation… allows me to say something once in a while. And that is why I put you on hold briefly and then put you back on because you won’t stop talking. I did ask questions, and you have not told me that you have any scholarship in Greek that exceeds that of all the translators of all the Bibles in English. So, you know, I guess the question is, why should I believe you? As near as I can tell, you know, I don’t read Koine Greek. I’m not a Greek scholar. It’s not my native language. But the people who are chosen by, you know, the publishers and committees to make new translations of the Bible, the people they choose are usually highly ranked Greek and Hebrew scholars. And that may be true of you, too, although you gave me no evidence that that’s true. So I’m going to go with the majority of scholars. And you can say you don’t. And, you know, like I said, you didn’t tell me whether you’re King James only or not. If you are, that explains your passion about this, because only the King James reads that passage the way you want it to be read. And I’m not King James only. I don’t think there’s any superiority of the King James over all other English translations. I think it’s better than some, and I think it’s got more flaws than some. So that’s just where I’m at. You’re not, I think. Who knows where you’re at, because you won’t really converse with me. All right. We’ll talk again if you call again someday. And if you just insist on talking over me the whole time, I’ll hang up again. Tony in South Carolina, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Steve. Bless you for going through that. I’m not going to gang up on him, but. My impression has been the same thing when I talk to King James only. I’m not saying he is just like you did, but that’s not my point today. So I do appreciate you being very easygoing with the people and bringing hopefully what you know that God has given laid on your heart and especially from your study. So I got two points. One is a clarification. And the other is another question, and this goes back to languages again and tongues. So, Steve, I want to clarify the point I was making because I think during the time when I spoke to you a couple weeks ago, I was misunderstood, possibly illustrated one of your caller, Mike, from Northern California, who apparently addressed you as Greg rather than your name. And that’s not a criticism. It’s just an example of how easily details can be misheard. or assumptions filled in, so therefore I am qualified. Right, so this is my qualification. My point was not that the Bible itself translates tongues into multiple Greek words. My point, I do know that the New Testament uses Glossa consistently, and I did look it back, and when you questioned me on that, I got real quiet, and then I said, if you remember, I said, well, this isn’t a gotcha, and that’s why I would defer to you, because obviously I’m calling you because I trust in what you’re going to say. So according to Strong’s, Glossa has the primary meaning of a physical tongue, as Jesus talks about in one of his, when he mentions the word Glossa, tongue, and then a secondary extended meaning, which is traditionally understood as language. So scripture uses that one word broadly, meaning that Greek word Glossa. The distinction I was drawing comes after the biblical text, not from altering it. Okay? That’s the point I want to make. Later theologians and scholars introduced some modern descriptive terms like glossolalia and xenoglossy by building on the root word glossa. Okay, so what is the point we’re going to?
SPEAKER 05 :
What is your bottom line? Because I don’t really care. I don’t really care about the Greek words for gloss. But go ahead and tell me what you’re getting at.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, first of all, I’m kind of talking through you to Mike. I think he kind of pricked my – I got the feeling he was thinking I was leading you guys down the wrong road, and that was not my intention. So that’s the first thing is to create a series here of non-confusion. So if that’s understood, then, yes, I can go right to my question if that’s what we want to do. That’d be great. Okay, so continuing on with the idea of the word tongues or call it languages, if we go to 1 Corinthians 13, 8 through 13, it’s stated that the spiritual gifts will cease. Paul mentions that prophecies will pass away, tongues will cease, and the knowledge will pass away. The cessation of these gifts is often interpreted as the occurring of at the second coming of Christ or when the New Testament is fully revealed. Well, fully revealed obviously is clarified. So my question is that, is have they ceased, and why would we still have tongues, and why would we have a Bible if people could speak in tongues? Because the better miracle would be for people to come to church and hear them speak in tongues, and then they could hear it in English and Spanish and that in the churches today. But we have a Bible. which uses language. Okay, so the question is about cessation.
SPEAKER 05 :
Oh, about cessation. Okay, so the real question is, why would we need the gift of tongues today when we have the Bible? Well, you know, frankly, in Paul’s day, people had not only the whole Old Testament, they had Paul himself. But that didn’t mean he felt like, and he wrote most of the New Testament, it doesn’t mean that they had no use for tongues. I don’t think there was much overlap in the kind of thing that tongues did and that Paul did. Paul, when he wrote about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, suggested that when people speak in tongues, they are praying, they are giving thanks, and they are blessing God. Those are the terms he used, which he said you’re doing. When you speak in tongues, you’re blessing God well. You give thanks well. He says, when I pray in tongues, my spirit prays, my understanding is unfruitful. So, in other words, tongues… Yeah, I have a Bible, and if I read the book of Psalms, I can read all kinds of wonderful praises and blessings and thanks to God. That doesn’t mean that it’s not edifying to hear somebody else give thanks to God, even though there’s some of that in the Bible. It certainly is the case that the New Testament is not primarily a book of thanks and blessing to God. It’s only instructions to people. And Paul said that he who speaks in tongues does not speak to men, but to God, for no one understands him. So I would say that whatever it is that tongues does, it doesn’t overlap or render in any sense obsolete what the Bible does. The Bible, written by the apostles and prophets, is giving us teaching and information and the gospel. As far as I know, tongues has never been used for that in the Bible. Obviously, on the day of Pentecost, when people spoke in tongues, they were speaking of the wonderful things of God, which might be referring to praising God, or they might have been sharing the gospel things, which the hearers would say, oh, these are the wonderful things of God we’re hearing about. But, of course, it wasn’t necessary for them to preach the gospel. in those tongues because Peter could just get up and speak in one language and everyone understood him, probably Greek, because everyone knew Greek in those days. So it wasn’t the case that tongues was somehow needed for preaching the gospel, at least if it was, no one ever did it that we have on record. The teaching about tongues, and the only teaching we really have about tongues is pretty much in 1 Corinthians 14, says, as I said, speaking in tongues is not a way of preaching the gospel. It’s not a way of teaching. It’s not addressing humans at all. It’s not addressing people. It’s addressing God. That’s what Paul said. And therefore, just like if I pray in English, maybe somebody in a church will pray in English or get up and praise God or the whole congregation praises God in their hymns and so forth. So another way that God was praised is by people speaking in an unknown tongue and an interpretation rendering that intelligible to the people. Now, you might say, well, why would we need that now that we have a Bible? I’m not sure why it was ever needed before the New Testament was completed. I don’t really know. It’s something God did. There’s lots of things we may be able to get along without. Lots of churches through their entire history get along without speaking in tongues because a lot of them don’t even believe in speaking in tongues, so you never hear it there. They survive. They get by. But to say if God has given various gifts, we don’t need the ones that we can’t see any need for. Well, that’s a different approach than I would take. I’d say if God gives gifts, I welcome the gifts. As long as they’re real, I realize that tongues and many gifts, prophecy too, which Paul said was the most desirable gift was prophecy. Those can be faked. There are false prophecies. There are false tongue speakers and false interpretations. I get that. And, you know, that might raise the other question. How do you tell which ones are real and which are false, which is, again, a different issue. But to say why would we need it, I don’t know. I don’t know why we need it. But I would suppose if God sovereignly chose to give it, and I don’t know why it’s needed, Maybe that’s a defect on my part. Maybe if I understood God better, I’d know why it was needed because he apparently thinks it is. I don’t think he would give it if he didn’t see it as valuable. And some people say, well, tongues is the least of the gifts. I don’t know if it’s the least of the gifts. The Bible doesn’t say that. But even if it is, I’m not going to tell God, sorry, I’ll only take the best ones. Don’t give me any of your cheap stuff. You know, I mean, if God wants to give a gift, I’m not against it. If Paul writes a chapter explaining that gift, I will follow what he says. That’s where it is. I’m not a Pentecostal, and I don’t have a theological axe to grind about it, not even a little bit. I’m just a Bible teacher, and when I read in the Bible certain teachings, I repeat them. I seek to understand them the best I can, and then I try to teach them. But I’m not, yeah, if your question is why do we need it now that we have the Bible, I’m not sure why it was ever needed, but whether it is or not, or whether we know why or not, God himself obviously must have thought they were necessary. And if they were necessary before we had the Bible, I’m not sure why they would be less so afterwards, since they don’t duplicate what the Bible does. All right. Thank you for your call, though. Let’s talk to Eileen from Pasadena, California. Hi, Eileen. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi. I have two questions, and I’ve had them in my spirit for the longest time. I want to be able to help this assistant pastor that I know he asked my other sister in the Lord and myself to pray for him as far as wanting to find a place to live that would have affordable rent for him that would be close to his job and so we began to pray for him and And after a while, we didn’t hear him say anything about if he had found a place or not, and we didn’t know whether to continue to pray for him. And finally, I asked him, do you still want us to pray for you for a closer place to your job with an affordable rent? And he said, oh, he said, I have a friend that offered me a room there. And that it’s not close to my job. And I said, oh, I said, how long have you known this friend? And is this friend a man or a woman? Or he said, no, it’s a woman. And I’ve known for a while. And she’s offering me a room at a great affordable rent. But she’s not a Christian. And I said, I think you better be careful. because you’re going to be giving the appearance of evil by people knowing that you’re living in the same house.
SPEAKER 05 :
So what would your question be, Eileen, what would your question be for me?
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay. I can’t hear the whole story. Okay. My question is, is he in sin if he’s not following what 2 Corinthians 6.14 says, when we’re not supposed to be unequally yoked and the Lord is, asking us to stay away from those people who don’t believe in him.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right. Well, I don’t think he’s unequally yoked by renting a room. There may be something to be said for, you know, the wisdom or lack of wisdom in the housing arrangement. It is possible that the room he’s renting is relatively separated from the rest of the house and has its own entrance and is, you know, is like a separate apartment. I don’t know. It may be that, you know, he sleeps there at night and she sleeps in the daytime and they hardly see each other. I don’t know. I mean, there are certainly dangers. You know, there are moral dangers and there are reputational dangers for a man living with a woman. But there are circumstances which would render that much less dangerous. a problem. Like I said, there’s, if he’s got, if his, if her house has a, like a studio apartment and he has a separate exit and he doesn’t really, he’s not in her living space. But I mean, I mean, even if, I mean, it could be possible that two people who are not in the least attracted to each other are sharing a house and even sharing, you know, the kitchen and things like that. This is not, this would be a very legalistic thing to, to forbid. But on the other hand, of course, he should use wisdom. And if members of the church think, hey, this looks like you and this woman are having a sinful relationship, well, he should no doubt be concerned about that. I would be if I was living in a situation where people say, hey, this is really looking bad. People are talking about it. You know, you can either take the position, well, who cares what they think? God knows I’m innocent. Or you could say, well, I don’t want to stumble people, so I’ll look for a better situation. And that’s going to be what he has to do if he realizes that some people in the church are concerned about that, he’s going to say, well, maybe I should find a better situation. But there’s no sin in him being there. He’s not unequally yoked with an unbeliever any more than a person is unequally yoked with an unbeliever if they are a Christian renting a house from a non-Christian landlord or an apartment. I mean, when you rent a place from someone, you’re not yoked with them in some sinful way. I think if he was a business partner with an unbeliever or married to an unbeliever, these would be approaching, you know, the meanings that Paul had in mind when he talked about don’t be yoked with them. Because a yoke is somewhere where you’re kind of trapped in a situation with somebody who doesn’t have the same values. If you’re renting a room from someone or a house or apartment, you’re not trapped. You can leave anytime you want to. It’s not like they can dictate to you your moral behavior or your policies. If they do dictate policies, you can just leave. That’s not true in a marriage, for example, or even in business partnership. So, yeah, I don’t see that as an unequally yoked thing. Many people would probably quote to him the statement of 1 Thessalonians, avoid every appearance of evil or all appearance of evil. Though the word appearance, I think, refers to every form of evil. So, you know, if he’s not doing any form of evil, then he’s not in violation of that. Some people think appearance of evil means something that someone else looking on might think is evil. Yeah, well, I mean, you want to avoid that as much as possible, frankly. There’s nothing you can do that someone won’t think is wrong. You can’t be a slave to other people’s opinions. But, you know, if you’ve shared with him your concerns, he definitely should give it some thought and say, well, maybe this is not ideal because people don’t know what’s going on behind closed doors here. And they may have the worst of suspicions. So, you know, I can see your concern. I can’t see that he’s doing anything sinful by simply living under the roof of somebody who’s not a Christian. But, of course, when a single man, I assume he’s single. I mean, if he’s got a wife and kids with him, I wouldn’t think this would be controversial. But if he’s a single man living with a single woman under the same roof, that still can be entirely innocent. And it might be entirely safe. But if there’s anything unsafe about it or simply that looks inappropriate, probably a pastor should try to find the situation that wouldn’t look so inappropriate. Alina, I need to take another call. I appreciate your calling today. Dave in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hello, Steve. Just a call in response to a caller you had a few minutes ago, the one who said that no Greek scholar says that this particular preposition means among you or in the midst of you. Either one, he’s being disingenuous in not telling the truth when he says that he has consulted many Greek scholars, or he’s being untruthful when he says… that none of them say that it can mean in the midst of. I’m not a Greek scholar. It’s been 40 years since I studied some Greek in seminary. I don’t sit down and read 20 Greek. But just two references that I have at hand here. One is Thayer’s Greek lexicon. The very first thing it says about the Greek word entos, it means… Within, inside, with the genetive entasumon, which is the case here in Luke 17.21. It means within you, that is, in the midst of you. And it gives the reference, Luke 17.21. The other reference that I have handy here is the Shorter Lexicon of the Great New Testament by Gingrich. Okay. And for the entry to entas, it says this, it functions as preposition with the genitive, inside, within, ta entas, it means the inside. That references Matthew 23, 26. And then it says in Luke 17, 21, entas humon, may mean within you, in your hearts, or among you, in your midst. So if you consulted any Greek scholars, they would have said exactly what you said.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, I assumed it. I assumed it. I mean, I’ve looked it up in the past, too. I just didn’t have the scholars at my fingertips.
SPEAKER 02 :
I wanted to say that just in case he’s still listening, he needs to come to terms with the fact that he’s being untruthful.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah. Well, I think he’s a King James-only person, and he may not be. He didn’t deny it when I asked him, but it seems like the only way he could be making this particular objection to my points is is if he believes there’s somehow an infallibility on the King James Version, which is the only version that reads it the way he wants it to be read. But when a person is King James only, there’s a psychological state that makes them prioritize that particular conviction, namely that the King James is always right, and that any Greek scholars who would introduce alternative ideas of reading it They simply are part of a New Age conspiracy. They are trying to corrupt the Word of God. They’re just enemies of the truth and so forth. When you have that as your starting point, then you go looking for the scholars who will support the King James reading. And even the scholars you… just quoted, they do support the King James reading because they all say that in is one of the possible meanings of the word entos. But they all disagree with him in saying it is also possible to mean in your midst or among you. Because the word you, of course, is plural. So I say the kingdom of God is within you, you guys, all of you guys, within this group here, in the midst of you. It’s got its representatives here. It’s penetrated, it’s infiltrated this you, the crowd. You know, this is something that, you know, it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in Greek to see the sensibleness of that. And certainly all the translators, you know, agree that that’s the best rendering. And frankly, if you simply follow the train of thought of Jesus about the kingdom of God, you realize that that’s the only interpretation that could really best fit what he says about that subject. But I appreciate you. Thanks for calling with that research.
SPEAKER 02 :
Sure thing.
SPEAKER 05 :
God bless you, Dave. I’m out of time. Sorry to say, Matt from the City of Industry, I’d love to take your call. Call tomorrow so we can get to you. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener supported. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let’s talk again tomorrow.
