In this episode of ‘The Narrow Path,’ host Steve Gregg tackles some deep and introspective questions about faith, serving with the right motives, and the genuine joy found in serving the Lord. Listen as callers bring forth their personal experiences and challenges, from questioning the authenticity of their happiness in service to reconciling traditional church teachings with modern faith practice. Steve provides insightful advice grounded in biblical teachings that encourage listeners to seek a relationship with God rooted in love and sincere servitude, while challenging the common notion that hardship equates to holiness.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
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. That is so that you can call in and we can talk to each other in real time on the air. If you have questions you’d like to ask to be discussed on the air about the Bible or the Christian faith or things remotely related thereunto, or if you disagree with the host about something and want to balance comment. These are the ways we occupy a commercial-free hour, and you can be a part of it if you call even now. We have a couple of lines open. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That number again is 844-484-5737. Our first caller today is going to be Mike in Cool, California. Mike, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good afternoon, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. I hope you’re having a blessed day. So far, so good. Oh, good. A start. It was either at the beginning of this week or the end of last week. Someone had called about doing things with the right motives. as far as the way I thought was serving and things like that. And when Jesus said to, I don’t exactly, I’m not on a walk right now exactly where it was, but he said, depart from me. I do not know you. And the people said, but we’ve prophesied in your name. We’ve healed people in your name and all that. So my question is, so serving to me is my spiritual gift. And it brings me great joy. And I’ve often wondered, and I’ve asked a pastor friend of mine, is it because it brings me so much joy and happiness, am I possibly doing this under the wrong motive?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, you know, a lot of people think that religion is not worth anything unless it’s miserable. And I think people who have that impression may be people who are not in love with God, but feel an obligation to follow God. I knew a woman who seemingly was a Christian for many years, and then she left, left the faith. And she told somebody afterwards that told me, she said, I feel like I’ve come out of a dark cave, and now I’m going to come out into the light. Now, to my mind, that’s just the opposite of my experience. You know, I can’t imagine feeling that I’m anywhere other than in a dark cave if I weren’t with the Lord. I mean, to me, being with Jesus is exciting. It gives meaning to life. I feel like I can see clearly things that I’d be blinded to without knowing him. To me, this person who had been allegedly a Christian for so long, but felt that she was in a dark cave until she left the faith, I think that person must not have really known the Lord. And I think there’s a lot of people like that, though she had been a Christian for a long time and been very religious. I think for some people, religion… is a drudgery. And, of course, it’s a drudgery because they don’t love God. Now, why would they follow religion if they don’t love God? Oh, for many selfish reasons. But enjoyment doesn’t seem to be one of them. You know, they might serve God because the crowd they’re in wants them to or because they hope that God will mistake them for the real deal on the judgment day or whatever. There’s various reasons people may do the religion thing and not love God. But Christianity isn’t a religion thing. Christianity is, you know, the real Christians are those who actually have met God, who know God, who love Jesus, who love God. And that being so, it is always enjoyable to do what pleases the person you love, even if it’s a difficult thing. If you’re in love, now I realize that many modern people have probably never known the phenomenon of love. Love in our modern world sometimes just speaks of using somebody to get good feelings for yourself or even using someone sexually or something. But no, biblically, love is where you actually care more about the happiness of somebody else than of yourself. And the more you can do to please them, the happier it makes you. Now, I imagine the average person who’s never really known this phenomenon must think that’s really a weird way to be. But people who are real Christians know because the fruit of the Spirit is love. Now, if you are a Christian, and it sounds to me like you are, and you love serving, well, that’s the new nature, you know, in you. I mean, if you really love God and his Spirit is in you, he’s changing you into the image of Christ. Christ loved serving his Father, even though it was painful. He was persecuted. He was crucified. But he loved his father, and he loved doing it for his father. You know, to say he loved doing it doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t have been happy to have pleased his father on an easier route if that was possible. But the thing is that when you love somebody, you don’t ask how hard is the road. You just ask where is it. Where is the road, not how hard is it. Because love just basically removes all self-concern. and eclipses it with concern for the other, in this case, God. Now, when you love God, you love his kids. The Bible says, whosoever loves him that begat, meaning the father, loves also those who are begotten by him, meaning his children. That’s in 1 John 5, I think it’s verse 2, might be at the end of verse 1. In any case, whoever loves the father will love his kids. And so if you love God, you naturally, the Holy Spirit births in you, creates in you a different spirit, a different mind. And you’ll love, you know, his kids, and you’ll love who he loves. And therefore, you’ll enjoy it. To serve others that you love is not drudgery. Now, if you’re doing it as a job, let’s just say you didn’t love your job or your employer, but you had to go to work every day anyway just to put food on the table, right? You might find that to be a drudgery. But if you were in love with your boss, then you’d look forward to going to work and being around them and knowing that you’re doing what they want done and pleasing them. And I’m not saying because you’re trying to manipulate them. Some people do that. But I mean just because you love them. You care about them. And you care about their happiness more than your own. So in other words, it shouldn’t be surprising. It is sometimes because I think a lot of people just follow religion. as a drudgery, and they don’t love God. And they’re probably the ones that Jesus said, I don’t think you and I know each other. But it sounds to me like you probably do. I mean, I don’t know you, but you’ve called before, and from this call I have the impression that you’re almost feeling guilty that you enjoy being selfless. Well, I enjoy being a Christian too. And the more I find myself being selfless in a particular situation, the better I feel about it. So I think that that’s probably what you’re experiencing. When you are a Christian, of course, your inward motivations do undergo change. You’re changed from glory to glory by the Spirit of God into the image of Christ, Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3.18. And as you become more like Christ, you take much more pleasure in serving God and others. So I don’t think you should wonder about that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, I feel much better because people have accused me of that. You do this just because it makes you feel so good. Well, if it didn’t make me feel so good, number one, I wouldn’t do it. Number two, I do it out of gratitude for what Jesus and God has done for me.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right, and how do they know that you’re doing it for that reason?
SPEAKER 08 :
Exactly.
SPEAKER 04 :
I mean, I’m surprised anyone would say something like that to you. I mean, how do they know why you’re doing something?
SPEAKER 08 :
I mean, I told them at church I would sleep in the parking lot if I could do this seven days a week. And I don’t get paid. I love it.
SPEAKER 04 :
And if they say you only do that because it makes you feel good, you have to say, well, why does it make me feel good? What is it that makes me feel good about serving others? I think it has to do with what God has done in my life and changed my whole orientation from being a selfish fellow into a Christ-like person more. Anyway, hey, I know you’re going to walk in. There’s a lot of noise there on your phone, but I hope that’s helpful to you.
SPEAKER 08 :
It’s so helpful. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, Mike. Good talking to you. Todd in Concord, North Carolina. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hey, Steve. How are you?
SPEAKER 04 :
I’m well. Thank you.
SPEAKER 05 :
So I’ve got a question. Actually, two questions. So I used to attend a church that had a lot of rules, very strict as far as outward appearance, as far as women having to wear dresses, not wearing jewelry, women couldn’t wear makeup, the men were required to wear long pants. You know, they’re a KJV-only church as well. So they use, obviously, you know, Deuteronomy 22.5, verse Timothy 2, 9 through 10, verse Peter 3, 3 through 4. But then they take those verses, and they also try to say that that is a, I guess, a the dress and the outward adorning and all that stuff is a part of holiness. And so they would use the verse in Hebrews 12, 14, which says, you know, follow peace with all men and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. I guess the biggest issue is they would say that anybody that does not um adapt their rules that um they are in danger of of going to hell or if you were a part of their church and then you came out of it that you were backslidden do they believe do they believe in married people wearing wedding rings uh some of them don’t some of them do so there’s there’s you know some leeway with that but yes there’s there um The particular church I’m referring to, correct, they do not believe in wedding rings.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, well, I’ve known people like that. They just feel like all jewelry and any ornamentation of any kind, any stylishness, any modernity in your look is somehow not being holy. some of these groups have decided that the way people dressed in, I suppose, maybe the 1940s is the ultimate in holiness. And I’ve known holiness groups, as they call themselves. That’s exactly what they do. They assume that clothing styles were at their very best in terms of spirituality in the 1940s or something. I don’t see anything in the Bible that says that. Now, you mentioned Deuteronomy. Of course, in Deuteronomy, It does say that men should not wear what pertains to a woman and women should not wear what pertains to a man. This is clearly talking about cross-dressing. This is not saying that a society cannot exist in which the men wear clothing which in a different society would be women’s clothing or vice versa. That where the women might live in a society where the women’s styles would be a man’s style somewhere else or at a different period of time. There was a time when, for the most part, wearing pants was a guy’s thing. It was a man’s style. Women wore dresses. Although I think, you know, I don’t know, maybe on farms, maybe women wore overalls and things like that. I know that in the old cowboy movies they’re wearing dresses. But I don’t know what people wore back then in those situations. But I will say this. Of course, there have been, when it became more popular and more normal for women to wear pants in our society, there were old-fashioned people who thought, well, that’s a man’s kind of style. Women shouldn’t wear a man’s style. Well, I guess I’d have to ask, why were they wearing pants? I mean, if you’re wearing pants because you work on a farm and the skirts of your dress get in the way and so forth, you’re wearing pants. I would say that’s – I don’t see that that would apply to the forbidding of cross-dressing. And certainly, once pants became a norm – for women and certainly it is one of the norms actually in our society there’s so many different norms that don’t that are we could say unisex I mean wearing pants is no more really a man’s style than a woman’s style and many women’s clothing stores have whole sections of pants that no man should wear because they are not a men’s style of pants you know pants in themselves are never mentioned in the bible as a men’s style in fact nobody in the bible wore pants as far as we know They wore robes and things like that. So, you know, it’s simply a matter of changing culture, what clothing comes to be associated with male or female dress. We all know that if we lived in Scotland or Ireland, we might wear kilts. We men might wear kilts on occasion. To my mind, here in America, I mean, I’ve seen men wear kilts in Irish parades and things like that, St. Patrick Day parades and all that. But, I mean, I would feel a little silly wearing them. And I’m mostly Irish. I’m like three-quarters Irish myself. But in the country I live in, men don’t generally wear those things. And it looks more like a skirt. So, you know, I’d feel awkward. Now, that’s just because it’s a cultural thing. It’s not a moral thing. So, I mean, the question is, why is somebody wearing clothing that maybe at one time or in another society would be associated with a different culture? If they are trying to cross-dress, then that’s the problem. The problem is that a person is trying to identify as the opposite sex and a man is trying to dress effeminately or he’s perverted or something like that. But that’s the concern. The concern is not that there be one style of clothing that for all eternity is in human history, is going to be a man’s style, and another style is going to be a woman’s style. God looks on the heart, by the way. And so I do think that people, the way you dress, can send messages to people, and some Christians may not want to send the messages that they are sending by the way they dress. Christian women often dress rather immodestly. Maybe they’re not sensitive to it because everyone dresses that way, and maybe they dressed that way before they were a Christian, and they’d never… When they go to church, the women don’t change that way. And so there are, I mean, there are forms of clothing that are more immodest than others. And that’s a shame because immodesty can be a stumbling block to people. But on the other hand, if a person is dressed immodestly, we don’t know if they are deliberately trying to be immodest or if they’re totally unaware. Because, you know, everyone in our society and they themselves always dressed this way. And, you know, technically, objectively, it’s immodest, but they’ve never been told or thought that. So, I mean, it’s what’s in the heart that God’s concerned about. I do think that when it comes to modesty and immodesty, that when men or women, especially women, become Christians, if their clothing is immodest, then a woman, an older woman or another woman in her age who’s a Christian, should perhaps point it out to her. and kind of disciple her in that way. Because clearly there are some forms of clothing that really are provocative, and which, you know, when women wear them in the presence of men, it’s a stumbling block. And I think every Christian, every person when they get saved, has got to have pointed out to them at some point the things in their life that really probably are not consistent with their following Christ. But holiness isn’t determined by how you’re dressed or not dressed. It’s not even determined by whether you have jewelry on. Now, Peter said that a woman’s adorning should not be that of clothing or silver or gold, but her adornment should be the adornment of her spirit, a meek and quiet spirit. the inner end of the heart, which is a great price to God, he said. I think the point here is that a woman is not supposed to be, if she’s a Christian, not supposed to be motivated as many worldly women are by the desire to allure men or even impress other women by their jewelry and their clothing and things like that. A woman’s desire should be to impress God with the purity and the meekness and quietness of her spirit, which is of great price to God, the Bible says. So the point here is it’s a focus on the inner man, not the adorning of the outer man. And many times you can’t tell much about a person’s inner attitude by what they’re wearing, but sometimes you can. And worse than that, sometimes when you can’t, people may think they can. That is to say, a person who’s very innocently and cluelessly dressed in a way that might be inappropriate for a Christian… doesn’t know it necessarily. But people looking at them maybe think they do know it and think that they are trying to send the wrong message. So, you know, I just think in general, Christians ought to be wholesome in their appearance. Avoid wearing things that offend other people. Certainly jewelry, You know, there’s some question as to how much jewelry a person ought to wear, because obviously if you deck out, you’re covered with piercings and all kinds of jewelry. You might be thought to, and you might even be trying to get attention or something with that. On the other hand, women have always worn some jewelry, and godly women did, and even godly men did. Remember when Aaron wanted to make the golden calf, he told the Jews, all of them, to break off their earrings and their metal things, their gold things, so they can melt it down and make a golden calf. What’s interesting is the gold calf was a sin. The wearing of the earrings was not. You know, they had plenty of gold on them, and it was not offensive to God until they melted it down and made an idol of it. And so really it’s what’s in the heart. not what’s hanging in your ears or your nose or on your fingers. That determines whether you’re holy or not. I think the churches that focus only on the outward appearance generate an unspiritual Christianity. And I think as many people and many kids growing up in those churches see that, they often are turned off by it, and unnecessarily. I mean, the rules have a measure of arbitrariness about them, which I think Christians should not adopt. I appreciate your call. Jimmy from Staten Island, New York. Welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Steve. I called you a couple of weeks ago regarding why the bodies of innocent babies die, and I would like to revisit Psalm 51.5. You had said that The sin and the iniquity, I was, I’ll just read it quick.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, you brought this subject up like several calls in a row. I’m not sure I have new things to say about it. Go ahead and quickly give me your new point.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thank you. Psalm 51, 5, Behold, I was shaped in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. And you attributed this to the, actually, shaping is a verb, iniquity is a noun. conceive is a verb, sin is a noun. So it’s not talking about him sinning. It’s talking about the condition he was born in. Now, if it’s describing his mother, then you would have to say that every woman is in the same situation.
SPEAKER 04 :
Why?
SPEAKER 07 :
And also… Why would we have to say that? Jimmy, excuse me.
SPEAKER 04 :
If David was saying that he was born out of wedlock, and therefore… In sin he was conceived. And he’s talking about his mother’s sin. How would this incur guilt on any other woman?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, first I would have to see the verse that teaches that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, this is the question. That’s the question. Is this teaching that?
SPEAKER 07 :
In verse 2, it’s talking about his iniquity and sin. In verse 3, it’s his transgressions and sin. In verse 4, sin and evil. In verse 9, sins. So it’s all talking about David. It doesn’t switch to his mother in verse 5.
SPEAKER 04 :
David is talking about his sin. It’s true throughout the psalm. This does not prevent him from saying, boy, my sinfulness goes all the way back to my inception. I was conceived in sin. If he was meaning that his mother was sinning when he was conceived, it’s not that he’s putting blame on her, shifting the blame from himself to her. He’s simply pointing out that sin has been part of his life from the very beginning. I’m not arguing that he was illegitimate. I’m saying that is certainly a reasonable way to understand the verse. You see, you’re suggesting that he is saying, because I was a descendant of Adam, and because Adam sinned, therefore I sinned in Adam. In fact, all people sinned in Adam. Now, this is a doctrine which is taught by Augustine. It was not taught before Augustine in the fourth century. It is also the case that David does not clearly say it that way. What I’m saying is this verse is ambiguous. I’m not saying what he is saying. I’m saying it’s ambiguous. And to suggest that he’s saying, I sinned in Adam. The moment I was conceived, I was guilty of Adam’s sin, which is what your doctrine would teach, is for David to teach a doctrine that is not taught anywhere else in the Bible. and certainly not in the Old Testament. Now, some people think they find that doctrine in Romans 5.12. I would challenge their interpretation of that, too. But apart from those two verses, Augustine had nothing. He had nothing to base that doctrine on. And I believe both of the verses, the one in the Old Testament and the one in the New, I think both David and Paul are not seeing themselves as introducing some new doctrine, although it was never taught anywhere else in Scripture. You know, where you’d expect to find that talk would be maybe in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve sinned and God starts telling them what the consequences are of their sins. Okay, now that you’ve done this, here’s how things will change. He didn’t mention anything about their kids. He didn’t mention anything about a sinful nature or guilt of their sin being passed down. He just said, woman, you’re going to have pain in childbearing. And man, you’re going to have sweat and hard work to feed yourself. And you’re both going to die. Okay, those are the consequences that God mentioned. There were none mentioned to Noah. There were none mentioned to Abraham. There were none mentioned to Moses. The law doesn’t mention this passing down of sin. The prophets themselves say that a child will not be held accountable for their fathers. In fact, the law said that too in Deuteronomy. So, I mean, the principle is taught in Scripture generally that a person is not guilty of something his ancestors did. unless David is saying that here. And if David is saying that there, I’m wondering where he got that doctrine. He didn’t get it from the Bible. But, you see, what I said to you earlier, I’ve said many things to you earlier, and you keep wanting to come back to this verse. There’s also poetry. In poetry, you use a lot of hyperbole. Like he says, against you and you only have I sinned. That’s also in this psalm. Well, no, he didn’t sin only against God. He sinned against Bathsheba. He sinned against Uriah. He sinned against the baby. He sinned against the nation. He gave the enemies of God occasion to blaspheme, the prophet said. But David, when he’s repentant, he’s using great hyperbole. I’ve sinned against you only, God. In other words, he’s not denying, really, as it sounds like he is, that anyone else was affected by his sin. He’s simply saying, my guilt against you is so overwhelming. it totally eclipses all other guilt in my mind. And to say, I’ve been sinful since I was conceived. Well, he might have said that. He could have, but it wouldn’t have had to be literal, certainly. Anyway, I’m going to take a break, but I appreciate your call. You’ve called about this about five times, I think. I’ve got to move along. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming, so don’t go away. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 02 :
The book of Hebrews tells us do not forget to do good and to share with others. So let’s all do good and share The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg with family and friends. When the show is over today, tell one and all to go to thenarrowpath.com where they 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. And be sure to tell them to tune into the show right here on the radio. Share listeners supported The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Share and do good.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. And we have a couple of lines that have opened up if you’d like to call. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, or you want to disagree with the host about something that we can talk about, feel free to do that. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Tony in Orcas Island, Washington. Hi, Tony. Good to hear from you again.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, hi, Steve. I love your show. I’ve called a few times. Oh, I hope not to be cut off so I can interact at least once halfway through. First of all, we have a wonderful community church on this island on YouTube. Oh, please look it up. I love it. Anyway, my question is… How would I look it up? Pardon? What’s it called? How do I look it up? Oh, oh. Orcas Island Community Church. Okay. Oh, I love it. It’s so fantastic. Okay, what’s your question? What’s your question? The question is, I lost my mom in 2024. She was a really good, strong Christian. For years, because of her disabilities, almost crippled, I didn’t think she was ever baptized, so I never bothered because I thought, well, if you’re not baptized, I don’t want to be either. And I asked her before she died, she said, yes, I was, Tony. So here I am, not baptized, believing in the Lord for all these years. If I never get around to being baptized, am I still going to go to heaven?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, first of all, I don’t understand your reasoning. You thought she had not been baptized, so you didn’t want to be. What does her being baptized have to do with you being baptized?
SPEAKER 06 :
I thought, well, if there’s a chance she doesn’t make it, I know that’s how stupid I am.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, it’s not wise, because Jesus said if you love father or mother more than me, you’re not worthy of me. You should be baptized no matter who else is or is not baptized. If you’re the only person on the planet who’s baptized, and if everyone close to you hates you for it or thinks you’ve betrayed them, well, that’s just what you’ve got to bear. You follow Jesus no matter who disagrees. Now, Jesus said to be baptized. I’m glad your mother was baptized. I think it’s strange that you would know that baptism is something that you’re supposed to do and say, yeah, but I don’t know if I want to. if my mom doesn’t go to heaven? Well, frankly, if you don’t want to be in heaven, if your mother’s not there, it sounds to me like she probably is. I don’t have any question that your mother’s in heaven. But let’s just take the opposite thing as a consideration. If she goes to hell, do you think she’d be happy to have you join her there? I mean, I honestly think that if she were to end up in hell, Her greatest desire would be that you don’t go there. There’s a story Jesus told about a rich man who died and went to Hades. And his concern was his four brothers who had not yet died. And he was eager to have them warned. Even if he can’t get out of hell, he wanted to send back a guy to warn them so they wouldn’t come there. How much more would your mother, if she were to end up in that fate, be begging God? God to give you a chance to avoid it. So, I mean, you know, to say, if so-and-so isn’t in heaven, I don’t want to be there. Well, then I suspect that what you have lacking is a love for God, because you would love God. I should say, if you love God, you’d want to spend eternity with him. And, you know, if everybody else you love didn’t make it there, you’d still want to be with him, because he eclipses all other people in terms of your concern. So, I mean, you’re actually very strange about that. But I would say, your mother being dead, or whether she was or not, you should be baptized. Yeah. And you’re asking, will you go to heaven if you don’t? I don’t know. I don’t know who’s going to heaven and who’s not going to heaven. All I know is what we’re commanded to do. And I never do any of the things the Bible tells me to do with the mind of, if I don’t do this, I won’t go to heaven. That’s never been a consideration. Obeying God, you do because you love him. You do it because he’s worthy of it. You do it because you exist, and all things exist for the glory of God. And your main interest is that God receive the glory he deserves. Now, that’s what a Christian thinks like. Religious people might think of something differently than that, but this is the way the Holy Spirit, when he regenerates you, puts that in your heart. And so, you know, so again, there’s never been a thought, I’ve never had a thought in my head, if I don’t obey this command of Scripture, I won’t go to heaven. You know, going to heaven is the last thing on my mind. Obeying God, living for God, pleasing God, and being with God, which happens to me in heaven, is really what has to drive you. So I’d say be baptized. You’re going to a church. There’s nothing to it. They’d be glad to baptize you, I’m sure. So let me urge you to do that because I think, I don’t know. I mean, the way you’re thinking about these things, I can’t relate to. But if you’re asking, I say first thing is make sure you’re converted. Make sure that you actually are committed to God and that you love God. And then, yes, get baptized. That’s definitely what you should do. Gus from Costa Mesa, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hey there, Steve. I have a question about dispensationalism as it regards to Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy. My understanding is that dispensationalists believe that that prophecy, that timeline, it was suspended at the end of the 69th week because of the Jewish leader’s rejection of Jesus. So my question is, was there any prophecy in the Old Testament that would indicate that this interruption of the 70th and the 70th week would not take place for some period of time? Was there anything in the Old Testament that predicted that? And similarly, in the New Testament, was there any writings from Paul or any of the other writers that indicated that pointed back and said because of the Jewish leader’s rejection of Jesus, there is now here for a suspension of that 70 weeks prophecy. And I’ll take my answer on the radio.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, that’s a very pertinent question, I think. And the answer, of course, is no. First of all, whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament, elsewhere, In the chapter itself, Daniel 9, 24 through 27, does not mention such a gap at all. The irony, well, there’s many ironies in this, but one of the ironies is that the dispensationalists who have created this gap are the ones who claim that they take the Bible literally. I mean, this is the amazing thing. Throughout history, Christians have known that some things in the Bible should not be taken literally because they’re poetic or they’re parabolic or they’re metaphors or they’re to be understood spiritually or there’s different ways of understanding certain things and not everything is taken literally. But the dispensationalists are the ones who boast that unlike everybody else, they take things literally. And yet they come along and create something that’s absolutely not literal. The literal reading… of Daniel 9, 24 through 27, is that all the things mentioned in that chapter will happen in the space of 70 weeks. And if, as almost all people I know assume, a week is seven years, then 70 weeks is 490 years. And that 490 years begins, it says in the prophecy, when there goes forth a command or a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Now, there have been differences of opinion as to which decree that was, because Cyrus made a decree like that back in 538 B.C. or 539 B.C., and then Artaxerxes made a couple of decrees along those lines some 60 years later or something or more. So which decree begins, we don’t know, but any of the decrees – would run out. 490 years, many of them would run out before the end of the first century, certainly, or even before the middle of the first century. So, you know, why would someone say, ah, but this isn’t, you know, sure, 500 and more years have passed since the prophecy when Jesus came, and yet it still hasn’t happened. Well, the dispensationalists say, well, there’s a gap between the 69th and the 70th week, so you’ve got 483 years ran their course without a hitch. And then because of something unpredicted in the prophecy, unpredicted anywhere in the Bible, the prophetic clock stopped for the past 2,000 years, and it’ll start up again at the rapture of the church. Then we’ll have the last of the 70 weeks, which will be the Great Tribulation. There’s not a word in the Bible to support that notion. That is 100% fabricated. Nothing in Daniel 9 would support it. Nothing else were in the Bible support. No. Yes. Is there anything else in the prophecies of the Old Testament, anything like that, that would say this is going to be a thing? No, because for one thing, there’s really nothing else in the Bible that sets dates like that. The 70 weeks is a unique prophecy in that respect. This 490 years from a starting point to an ending point. There’s nothing like that in the Bible with reference to the Messiah anyway, or the end of the world or anything like that. So, you know, the whole topic of this period of time passing is not elaborated on elsewhere in Scripture, both either the Old or the New Testament. Certainly no biblical writer in the New Testament says, had any awareness that the 70th week was still ahead. At least none of them alluded to it or gave the slightest awareness of knowing anything about such a thing. So, no, it’s simply something that dispensationalism needs. Why? Because they believe that the things that are described as taking place in the 70th week are future things. they think in the 70th week there’s an Antichrist. There’s no Antichrist mentioned in Daniel, but at least not in this prophecy. There may be an Antichrist mentioned in chapter 7 or 8, some people think. Some people think there’s one in chapter 11. But the prophecy of the 70 weeks makes no reference to any Antichrist. The only person who is identified, there’d be two. One would be the Messiah, who’s mentioned several times in the passage, and it’s a prophecy about the Messiah. I suppose the only other person mentioned is is the prince who is to come, but he is said to be the leader of the people that would come and destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD. So that would be the Romans, and probably Titus would be the prince who would come, unless it’s referring to a prince the way that Daniel 10 refers to princes, like the prince of Persia, the prince of Grisha, the prince of Rome. These would be demonic princes in the heavenlies. We read about the prince of Persia and the prince of Grisha in Daniel 10. it may be the prince who is to come, maybe a reference to that kind of a principality. But the point is, the prince who is to come is associated with the people who destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. That would be the Roman people. And so there’s nothing there about an end times Antichrist or anything. It’s just made up. Just made up. And it took me a long time to figure it out because, of course, like all dispensationalists, when I was being taught my dispensationalism, I was taught that there’s this gap there and that you read about the Antichrist there, not Christ. Everything in the passage is about Christ, not Antichrist. That he brings an end to the sacrifices and offerings in the middle of the week. That is, after three and a half years, Jesus was crucified and brought an end to the sacrificial system. But the dispensations say, no, no, no, no. The one who the one who puts an end to the sacrificial system is the Antichrist who does that by destroying or defiling the temple in the middle of the tribulation. Well, first of all, Daniel 9 doesn’t mention any tribulation anywhere. There’s no mention of tribulation. There’s no mention of Antichrist. And there’s really no mention of a future end times temple. So these are all inventions that dispensation inserts into the passage along with a 2,000 year gap between… the 483rd year and the 484th year in a period of 490 years, a 2,000-year gap, which is like five times or four times the length of the whole period added in without mention. This is not literal interpretation, folks. I mean, if you want to believe that that’s in there, then do not claim that you take prophecy literally, because that is about as far from being literal as a person can be in reading that passage, which is why most Christians throughout history never saw it that way. You can’t see it in the passage. You have to force it into the passage, and that’s what dispensationalism has always done. All right, brother. Thank you for your call. Let’s talk to Joseph in Indianapolis, Indiana. Hi, Joseph. Welcome.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thank you very much, and thank you for your show. The two questions I have is when Jesus was on the earth and he was doing the healing, and some of his disciples did healing also, why do you think that there’s not much healing as far as believers? I mean, say they can heal, but you don’t see that much right now. And my other question is, of course, tornadoes and hurricanes and stuff like that, they say it’s acts of God. And why do you think that happens? Because it brings maybe death and destruction to the earth. And like I said, thank you again for your show.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, brother. Thanks for your call. Let me talk about the acts of God first. The expression acts of God with reference to hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, that kind of stuff, that’s not an expression the Bible uses. In speaking of natural disasters, that’s more of a contemporary way of speaking about things that are disasters that are not caused by humans. Let’s put it this way. A great number of the disasters that plague the human race and the world are caused by humans, but not all of them. Some of them are natural. And so it’s just become a custom to speak of those things as acts of God as opposed to acts of some man. It’s assumed that God is the one in charge of nature. And therefore, when nature does things, we have to say, well, that’s, you know, you can’t blame anyone for that but God himself if you’re going to blame people. Of course, we’re not supposed to blame God because he knows what he’s doing and we don’t. And he never does anything wrong. But in other words, who’s responsible for this? Well, if anyone is, it’s God, not man. And so that’s why the term acts of God are used with a certain class of things. That’s not a biblical designation for them. Is God behind them? Well, that’s some people. There’s different ways of looking at that because the Bible doesn’t answer that fully. The Bible does say that God can intervene in natural things. There’s no question about that. In fact, apparently even the devil can do that because when the devil got permission from God to harm Job’s family, he did it through a whirlwind, came and knocked down the house of the children and apparently killed the children. At least that’s what the report was that he got. But the whirlwind, we have to assume, was part of Satan’s, you know, attacks. And so apparently Satan and God both have some measure of control over nature. But that doesn’t mean every time a natural thing happens that God or Satan did it. It’s sort of like when we have dreams at night. You know, if I have a dream, is God speaking to me or is the devil trying to, you know, deceiving dreams, or is it just a natural phenomenon? Well, it could be. It depends. I’ve taken them case by case. In the Bible, some dreams are from God. I don’t know of any dreams in the Bible that are from Satan, but I think I’ve had a few that probably were. And then, of course, there’s dreams that are almost certainly not from God or Satan. The same thing with natural disasters. I think a lot of them are just from the natural movement of the tectonic plates or the high-pressure systems in the atmosphere and things like that. although God and Satan both, I think, have on occasions intervened to manipulate them. We know Jesus, for example, could stop a storm by commanding it. So weather itself is subject to God and might have even been subject to Satan. We don’t know if that storm that Jesus stilled was caused by demonic powers. And I say that because Jesus was on the way across the lake to encounter the demon-possessed man who had a thousand demons in him. And if the boat had sunk, then that man would remain in bondage to demons for his whole life. Jesus was coming, and the demons may have wanted him to not get there. And the fact that Jesus rebuked the storm as if it was doing something wrong, you know, is kind of interesting. I’m not going to speculate too much about that. But I will say that some acts of nature, no doubt, we should say are acts of God. Certainly the flood was in Noah’s day. And some seem to be acts of Satan, like the wind that blew down the house on Job’s kids. And then a lot of other things probably are not the product of any supernatural intervention at all, probably just the working out of nature. As far as healings go, Jesus healed a lot of people. The apostles healed a lot of people. Why don’t we see a lot of people healed now? Well, some people think we should. And the people who think we should, fall into different categories. Some of them feel that Jesus kind of delegitimized I guess we’d say sickness and that everyone should be healed and if they just had enough faith they would. Others don’t necessarily think that but they do think that if we did have more faith we probably would see more healings. Prayers are more likely to be answered when they’re offered in faith than when they’re not. But On the other hand, miraculous healing is not promised. There’s never been a time where God healed every sick person they came in touch with. Jesus healed lots of people, and the apostles healed a lot of people. But there were still a lot of sick people left in the towns they went to and when they left. We know this because when Jesus died, You know, shortly after that, the apostles healed a guy in front of the temple at the beautiful gate who’d been there for, what, 40 years? Jesus had gone through there and seen him many times and hadn’t healed him. So we know that Jesus didn’t heal everyone he encountered, nor did the apostles. In fact, Paul said he left his friend Trophimus sick in Miletus, couldn’t heal him. Timothy was sick frequently with stomach problems. Paul said, take a little wine with that, you know. Paul himself had a thorn in the flesh, which he referred to as an infirmity, which is the most common Greek word in the Bible for sickness. So, I mean, not everyone was healed even by Jesus or even by the apostles. We know that. So, you know, I don’t know what percentage of people should be healed. I do know this, though, that miraculous things happen more at some times than others, in some settings than others. In the Old Testament, there were clusters of miracles around the time of Moses and Joshua. And then there weren’t really many more for another 700 years. And then there were clusters of miracles around Elijah and Elisha. And then there don’t seem to have been many more miracles for another 700 years. Then came Jesus and the apostles. So here we have, you know, three quarters of a millennium between the first cluster of miracles and the second one in the Old Testament, and then between the second one and the third. I’m not saying that Jesus coming couldn’t have inaugurated a greater frequency of miracles to last throughout the church age, but I don’t see that it has. There are people healed. I believe in healing. I believe in the gifts of the Spirit. I just don’t believe that God is forced to heal every time that we want him to. There’s no promise of universal healing. And if there was, Jesus didn’t keep that promise even when he was on earth, nor did the apostles. So, you know, some people die sick. Some people, that’s the way God wants them to die. You know, it’s appointed unto man once to die. Some people die suddenly in accidents or from violent criminals attacking them or from wars or from prolonged diseases. People die lots of different ways. And there’s no guarantee that the way you’re going to die will not involve a prolonged disease. Though God can heal when it’s not his will for you to die in that way. But we can’t really predict what way God will prefer to take us home. Nor should we complain. You know, he’s the one in charge. He’s the one who knows the best. He’s the one who knows whether we should live longer or not. He’s the one who knows whether we should live with an infirmity or not. We don’t know that. We only know what we wish for. But the Bible is not about giving everyone what they wish for. The Bible is about God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven. And for people who experience something other than what they would wish for, for them to say, well, your will be done. On earth as it is in heaven. If this is your will, fine. And that’s exactly the approach Jesus took. He didn’t want to be crucified, but he said, Father, if it’s possible, if it’s your will, let this cup pass from me. I don’t want to be crucified. But he says, but not my will, but yours be done. That’s the attitude of a Christian. That’s the attitude of Christ himself. I don’t really want this pain. I don’t really want this suffering. But God, if you see there’s a good reason for it, veto my request and do what you want, because you’re always wiser and better. And that’s how I would look at the whole subject of healing and other miracles that we don’t see so many of anymore. I appreciate your call, brother. We’re going to talk to Margo from San Francisco next. Margo, welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hi, Steve. I always appreciate you when you answer the questions. I got stuck on something, so I definitely need your help on it. Okay. I have a question that has to do with the children. I birthed a child with the blessing of God’s permission. I say that because I did IVF for her. And I had the prayer in, prayer coming, and prayer when she got here. She’s starting to get rebellious at this point. What do I do and where do I go in the Bible? Because she’s getting to a point where she’s becoming of the world where it’s hard for me to reach her. And then the Bible says, raise a child the way it should go. Help me out with that. I’m going to hear you on that here.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. Well, I wish, and probably all of our listeners wish, that there was some magic answer to that question. You got a rebellious child. You raised them to be a Christian. You treated them well. You taught them the Word of God. You lived it out before them. Now, I don’t know if all these things are true in your case, but they are true of millions of Christians cases, and they have done what one would argue is raising up a child, training up a child in the way they should go, and their child has not continued in that. Now, as far as you are concerned with the promise in the proverb, train up a child in the way he’s going, when he’s old, he will not depart from it, this is not a promise. I realize people take it as a promise because we desperately want to, but then we find out it’s not always true. The proverbs are not intended to be promises. The Proverbs are observations and common sense recommendations. You want your children to turn out well, then train them well. That’s what he’s saying. You want to be wealthy? Well, then work hard. Now, there’s no guarantee that you’ll be wealthy if you work hard. It does say, you know, the hand of the diligent will bear rule. You know, the sluggard will come to poverty. Yeah, well, some sluggards don’t come to poverty. Some sluggards are part of the royal family, and they live in wealth all their lives. You know, Proverbs are not promises. They are what we call wisdom literature. They are advice. You want this result? Here’s the thing you should do. You want your kids to turn out well? You should train them well. Is it guaranteed they will? Well, no, because they have free will. All humans have free will. You can’t force them. How do you win them back? That I wish I knew. I wish we had a magic wand to win back straying children. I would say the best you can do, besides praying hard for them, is to live righteously before them, love them unconditionally, and make them thirst for righteousness by their lack of it and by the obvious presence of it in your life. I’m sorry I’m out of time. I wish I was not. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener-supported. You can donate if you want from our website, but everything there is free at thenarrowpath.com. Have a good weekend. God bless.
