In this episode of The Narrow Path, Steve Gregg delves into the complexities of baptism and repentance, exploring the theological implications and misunderstandings that often arise in Christian discussions. Listeners are encouraged to engage with scripture deeply, recognizing the significance of context in interpreting passages like Acts 2.38. Steve emphasizes the holistic nature of salvation, urging believers to consider repentance, faith, and obedience as integral components. Listeners also gain insights into traditional practices through the lens of Paul’s actions and teachings. The conversation touches on the relevance of Jewish law post-resurrection, highlighting Paul’s approach to cultural sensitivity without compromising
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon, taking your calls if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, or you disagree with the host and want to defend an alternate viewpoint, we welcome you to call. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Many of you know I’m this week speaking a variety of places in the Santa Cruz area. I’m speaking for Youth with a Mission School in the Santa Cruz Mountains. I’m also speaking other places while I’m up in this northern part of the state. On tomorrow night, I’m speaking in Santa Cruz at the Paso Tiempo Inn. It’s open to the public. Information is on our website. On Friday night, I’ll be speaking in Monterey. And on Saturday night in San Jose, or Morgan Hill, actually. And so those are all open to the public, I think. I mean, you can go to our website and see how to join us there. You can get the time and place and so forth at our website, thenarrowpath.com, under the tab that says Announcements. Now, tomorrow afternoon, I’m going to be interviewed on a secular radio station in Santa Cruz. I used to have a radio program on this station. It’s KSCO in Santa Cruz. It’s a secular station, but I used to have a Sunday night program called The Road to Find Out for about a year. I had Sunday night programs on it. And I became acquainted with many people at the station, most of whom are not Christians. One of them, the guy who was my call screener, has his own show in the afternoons now, and he and I really got along really well. I really enjoyed him. He’s had me on his program to interview me before, and he’ll have me on tomorrow, too. His on-air name is Dave Michaels. That’s not his real name, but Dave Michaels’ show on KSCO tomorrow from 5 to 6. He’ll be interviewing me, and then when that ends, like about an hour later, we have our Santa Cruz meeting at Pasadena. Most of you are not in Santa Cruz or near there, but some of you may be. And if you’re interested in that fact, look up where I’ll be and join us. We’d love to see you there. And I don’t have to say anything more about that right now. We need to go to the phones. Our first caller today is Barbara from Roseville, Michigan. Barbara, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thanks for calling. Thank you. Thanks for taking my call. My question is out of Acts 2.38 where it says, Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. for the remission of sins, recognizing that remission means forgiveness or removal of sins. Do you believe that God meant what he said when he said that this particular baptismal process would forgive and remove sins? And I’ll hang up and listen. Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, Barbara, thanks for your call. First of all, I do believe God always means what he says. though he doesn’t always say it in terms that are unambiguous. So that’s why we study the Bible. We don’t only read it. The Bible is written in a way that doesn’t just yield its complete information to a casual reader. We need to come to the Word of God very reverently, very seriously, and very diligently to study it. And when it comes to baptism and repentance and salvation, these are subjects that the Bible talks about frequently. lots of places, especially the New Testament, talks about these things. And you don’t get the whole teaching on a subject from a single verse. So sometimes it may seem like a verse that says the whole thing, but also sometimes the phraseology can be taken one way or a different way depending on what is intended in the passage and also what the rest of the Scripture would shed light on it to mean. For example, In the passage you’re talking about, which is Acts 2, 38, the people asked Peter after he preached his first sermon on Pentecost, they said, what must we do? And he said to them, repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now, there’s three things he said to do. Repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now, he said that the repenting and being baptized, you do that for the remission of sins. Now, is it the repenting or the baptism that remits the sins? That’s the question. He put those two together. You repent and you be baptized because you’re required to do both. But is it both of them together? Is it just the second one? Is it the first one? What is it that is for the remission of sins? Many people, like yourself, I believe, would say, well, he’s saying you have to be baptized for the remission of your sins. But that’s only part of the statement. You need to repent and be baptized and receive the Spirit. And this process, especially repentance and baptism, is for the remission of sins. In my opinion, it’s the repentance more than the baptism that is focused on as the remission of sins. And the reason is because Peter preached another sermon the very next chapter, and he told them that they need to repent and turn to God. and their sins will be blotted out, he said. Now, he doesn’t actually mention baptism there as blotting out their sins, but turning to God is that which he says will blot out their sins. So, you know, we’ve got two sermons in two chapters from Peter, the same guy, and both of them talk about blotting out or remitting sins. Both of them mention repentance or turning to God as the means of sins being blotted out. One of them also mentions baptism. It’s kind of a tag on with when you repent, you get baptized. Now, what if you repent, but you don’t get baptized? Well, shame on you. You should be baptized. It’s commanded. But is it the baptism or is it the repentance that results in the blotting out of the sins? Well, you know, repentance is mentioned both places as connected with it. baptism is mentioned in one of them and it makes me think that the repentance is the main thing because it says in chapter 3 verse 19 this is Peter’s second recorded sermon he says repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out okay so repent and be converted so your sins will be blotted out the previous chapter he said repent be baptized for the remission of sins what I understand is this a person is saved by turning to God A person is saved by giving their heart to God. When they give their heart to God, that’s repenting and believing in Him, they also are committed to doing the will of God, because that’s what turning to God involves. Now, they are supposed to get baptized at that point, too. And in biblical times, they always did. However, What if they didn’t know to be baptized, and they gave their hearts to God, but no one told them to be baptized? Would their sins not be blotted out? I personally think they would be, but there’s no excuse for somebody not being told to be baptized. Unfortunately, we live at a time where the church does many things for which there’s no excuse. Many churches don’t even teach repentance as a necessity, and there’s some who don’t teach baptism as a necessity. I mean, there’s just lots of different off-balance teachings in the church. Now, if a person turns to God with all their heart and genuinely repents and becomes a follower of Christ, but no one ever told them they’re supposed to be baptized, I believe they’re saved even though they haven’t been baptized. Now, it’s subnormal. Being baptized is normal. Lots of things are normal, but lots of people’s experience is subnormal. I don’t believe that a person is saved because they got baptized. I believe they get saved because their heart is turned to God. That’s what repentance is. And then Of course, what comes from that is their obedience to God as best they know to obey. Obviously, people don’t know intuitively whatever God wants them to do. Nobody knows instinctively if they’ve never been preached to that being baptized is commanded. But if they do know it and they’re converted, they’ll be baptized. But sometimes people are saved before they’re baptized. We see this in Acts chapter 10. When Peter was preaching the gospel in the house of Cornelius, uh, They weren’t baptized at that point, and the Spirit came upon them, and they’re regenerated. Apparently, they believed Peter’s words. And they apparently, in their hearts, turned to God because of it. And he poured out his Spirit on them. And Peter acknowledged this was strange because they weren’t baptized. But he said, who can withhold water from these who have received the Holy Spirit the same as we have? So he commanded them to be baptized. Now, what this illustrates is baptism is commanded. But people are sometimes saved before they’re baptized, as in the case of the house of Cornelius. And that means it’s not baptism itself that saves. Now, I realize that 1 Peter 3, verse 20, says that baptism saves us. But Peter, who wrote that, also was the one in the house of Cornelius who recognized that these people had been saved and received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. How do we harmonize all that? Well, because the holistic teaching of the Scripture is not just a list of principles or a to-do list. Basically, there’s a holistic idea of what it means to be saved. And when you have been saved, you’ve turned to Christ and you’re committed to him. This turning to Christ involves a series of things. Repenting, believing, being baptized, receiving the Holy Spirit. All of those things were part of the whole package. And so it was not impossible for them to speak of believing as if that’s the only thing, or repenting as if that’s the only thing, or being baptized as if that’s the only thing. Everybody knew when they thought of baptism, they were thinking of the day they believed and repented and were baptized and received the Spirit. When they believed, that’s the day they repented and believed and were baptized and received the Spirit. In other words, the holistic experience of salvation included all these things, but any one of them could be mentioned in connection with the moment of salvation. Now, as far as which of those things blotted out sin, if we think salvation simply means the blotting out of sin, then we don’t have a complete understanding of salvation in the Bible. Blotting out sin is certainly justification, but that’s not all there is of salvation. Salvation isn’t just justification. It’s sanctification. It’s transformation. It’s being conformed to the image of Christ. It’s a life of a different way of living. It’s walking in the Spirit. These are all part of what salvation is in the Bible. And it’s sometimes summarized in a single word only because they didn’t want to say all the words every time. They didn’t have to. All those things went together in their minds. So when Peter said in 1 Peter 3, A baptism now saves us. What he means is when we got baptized, we got saved. And that whole process of baptism, you know, having repented and believed and being baptized, that all happens like within minutes or hours of each other. That was when they were saved. They didn’t separate individual parts of that experience and say, oh, this is the part that saves me and the other parts don’t. And I think that’s where some people read Peter wrong there. They think he’s saying it’s the baptism itself that saves. No, it’s Christ who saves. Rituals don’t save. But if you’re following Christ and he tells you to be baptized, you’ll do that. And that’s, you know, so you ask, do I believe God meant what he said? I do. I do. But I understand that you can read a passage and take it to mean something when it really is more nuanced than that. And it has to be understood more in its context, especially of the whole teaching of Scripture on the same subject. Because it’s very often the case that that a subject will be, something will be said about it briefly in a passage. And you might get the impression, well, that’s the whole picture. And it isn’t. There’s much more to it than just that one thing. It’s just part of it. All right. I need to move along and talk to some other callers here. Let’s talk to Gary in Las Vegas, Nevada.
SPEAKER 09 :
Gary, welcome to the narrow path.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hey, Gary. You there?
SPEAKER 09 :
I certainly am, yes. I had a question about telling people that you’re praying for them. It appears in Scripture, like the introduction to Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Paul mentions that he’s praying for these people and what he’s praying about for them. My question is more like for people that are on your prayer list, you regularly pray for, but you haven’t seen them in a long time, sort of a distant relative, something like that. It would seem that you would want their life, if we believe the efficacy of prayer, that their life would be better because we are praying for them. And it would be good for them to know that God is blessing them. It’s not just, you know, that their circumstances are better. Some insight. What do you think?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, initially you said you were going to ask about telling people you’re praying for them, and then it seemed to take another direction. Are you wondering whether we should tell people that we’re praying for them, or are you asking what we should expect when we pray for people?
SPEAKER 09 :
No, whether we should tell them.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, like you said, Paul told them that he was praying for them. I don’t think there’s a command when you pray for someone, tell them you’re doing it, as if you’re negligent by not doing it. You can tell them or not. You might say, well, what’s the point of telling them? I would say when Paul told them that he was praying for them, he did so as a means of saying, I’m not forgetting you. I’m not with you, as I’m not physically with you. But be encouraged. You’re still on my mind. I’m still offering up my petitions for you to God. So it’s not as if you’re abandoned there without me there. I’m carrying your concerns in my heart and presenting them to God on your behalf. I think it’s just to encourage them to know they’re being prayed for, which is helpful to know.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 01 :
But if you don’t tell them, you haven’t done anything wrong by not telling them.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay. I would assume one needs to be careful, you know, Jesus taught, be careful that we’re not praying for them because, you know, we want credit or something like that. Oh, I’m a holy guy and I’m doing this for you. Right?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, you know… The Bible doesn’t treat prayer as if it’s something that is a, something you get brownie points for, or that you have some better status because you pray. Prayer is something you do because you’re weak, because you’re needy. It’s a child crying out to his father or her father for assistance, to say, I’m asking God to help you. I’m asking God to help me too. You know, it’s not a boast when you say, I’m praying. You’re not saying, I am engaged in a virtuous spiritual discipline, which maybe you don’t pray as much as I do. And if you don’t, you’re not as virtuous as I am because I’m doing a very spiritual thing by praying. I think with Paul, he didn’t think of prayer as a discipline or as a virtue that you get brownie points for or that people should congratulate you for doing. I think you pray in reality because you’re needy. And because you need God’s help. And it’s more of a confession of dependency, a confession of weakness. So it’s not, I mean, I realize there are many religious people who don’t pray much. And in many cases, they feel a little guilty about that. I think it was Charles Spurgeon who said, if you ever want to make a Christian man feel guilty, ask him about his prayer life. Which is a very sad thing to say, because I think he’s right. almost all Christians don’t pray as much as they feel they probably should. And therefore, if you find that someone prays a lot, you know, I say, wow, they’re a more spiritual person than I am. Well, maybe they’re praying because they’re not more spiritual, because they need more spiritual strength, they need more spiritual assistance. I mean, that is a spiritual attitude, which every Christian, of course, should have. But the amount of praying you do doesn’t tell how spiritual you are. Muslims pray a great deal, seven times a day or something, toward Mecca. I mean, there’s a lot of praying going on in many religions, but a lot of them don’t really even have a relationship with God through Christ. So praying itself, though it is a religious discipline in all religions, even in Christian religions, is not intended by God to be a religious discipline. It’s supposed to be a relational reaching out of a child to a father and connecting in this position of dependency. And if I say I’m praying for you, I guess I don’t know if I tell people that very often. Maybe I should tell them more. But I don’t expect them to say, wow, are you ever spiritual? I would just expect them to say, well, good, I’m praying for me too. I’m glad to have you agreeing with me in prayer. Uh, I don’t, you know, I’m not seeing it the way you’re, you’re suggesting, but, uh, I’ll tell you this. If I tell someone I’m praying for them, the last thing on my mind is now they’ll think I’m quite spiritual because I’m praying maybe more than they are. Um, the truth is I probably don’t pray enough. I mean, I agree with Spurgeon, you know, if you want to ask me about my prayer life, well, I pray, I pray. And, uh, but, But I could be a little embarrassed that I don’t pray more fervently or more often or with greater faith or more hours of the day or something. But that’s only something to be embarrassed about if the reason you’re not praying more is that you’re not trusting God and God is not in your thoughts. Or if you’re thinking of prayer time as a religious discipline for which you get some kind of credits, both of which I think are not good. I think we should pray very naturally. We should walk with God, be conscious of God all the time, be offering our petitions up to him throughout the day as we’re going through the day. I love Nehemiah’s prayer life in the book of Nehemiah. He’s an administrator, kind of a governor, kind of a guy. He’s also a building contractor, building the walls of Jerusalem. He’s a busy guy. He’s practical. He’s a great leader. And people are always bugging him and interrupting him and criticizing him and accusing him. And he just shoots up a prayer to God just as he’s doing his work. That’s what the interesting thing about the book of Nehemiah. It’s telling his story by him. He’s telling the story. But when he tells about, you know, this person came against me, this person slandered me, and he just says, Oh, Lord, remember me. Remember the integrity of my heart. You know I’m not guilty of what they’re saying. And he just keeps it working. I mean, if you saw Fiddler on the Roof, I always appreciate Tevye, the main character of that, how he’s mucking out the barn and he’s talking out loud to God, just like he would if God was sitting there on the loft conversing with him. And that’s, to me, that’s a good prayer life. Now, if you get up early in the morning and you go into your closet and shut the door and get on your knees and pray for two hours before you do anything else, many spiritual people have done that. I would not speak evil of that. I actually envy people who’ve been able to do that. My prayer life is much more connected with my daily life. And because, you know, it’s like if I was walking with a friend all day long, I’d be conversing on and off naturally about whatever’s on my mind. And that’s kind of how prayer was for like me and Maya and probably Jesus too. I mean, Jesus did spend time in prayer. That is, he got up early and went off to pray alone so he could talk to his father undistracted. But he also shot up prayers spontaneously. You read of it, for example, in John 12, you know, where Jesus is talking to people and he just says, Oh, Lord, Father, glorify your name. You know, and actually God speaks back to him and says, I have glorified it and I’ll do it again. The point I’m making is prayer, it doesn’t fit into any one particular pattern. Although, religions all have prayer and they all uh adopt forms of prayer and habits of prayer and sometimes special times and places of prayer well that can be okay that’s not a bad thing like i said jesus would get up early in the morning go out and pray so he wouldn’t be distracted but he also just lived his life in communion and communication with his father in a very natural way um Again, I don’t see that as a discipline. I see it as a relational thing. And so, you know, if it’s a discipline, then the more you do it, the more you feel proud of yourself for doing it. But I’m not thinking of prayer.
SPEAKER 09 :
The Pharisees were, right, the Pharisees, which is in the Sermon on the Mount, warned the Pharisees about praying out in public to get the acclaim of men, and we need to be careful of that.
SPEAKER 01 :
Right. We need to be concerned only about whether we’re connecting with God, not whether we’re impressing people with our prayer life.
SPEAKER 09 :
Great. Steve, thank you. You’re a thorough answer. I’ll let you go down with somebody else. Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, Gary. God bless. Okay, Andy in Carlsbad, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hey, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. I had a quick question about Bible translation is because this morning I was reading in Proverbs 17. I’m in the New Living Translation because that was kind of one of my casual, I don’t know, I just bought it. 17.8 says, A bride is like a lucky charm. Whoever gives one will prosper. I thought that was fascinating. I didn’t know what you thought about how that verse is written there.
SPEAKER 01 :
It’s not necessarily endorsing bribes. It’s saying that bribes, you know, really can get stuff done. But that’s he’s making more of a comment about how politics works. A lot of times what Solomon talks about to his son, Solomon’s a king, his son is a prince. And he’s talking about, you know. how the power in a king’s word can do things, life and death is in the power of the tongue, is primarily in the context that the king can declare that someone will die or not. And it’s just kind of the dirty facts about politics, not necessarily recommending any course of action in some of these cases. Although, of course, the Proverbs do recommend many things in different cases. You have to take each proverb separately because they’re kind of, each of them is a stand-alone observation. But It’s more of an observation that, you know, people who bribe rulers, it’s amazing. It’s like magic how what they want gets done. Now, he’s not saying you should bribe rulers. He’s certainly not saying rulers should take bribes. It could be more or less a cynical observation, but it’s an observation nonetheless. You know, some of the Proverbs are simply observing what’s wrong with the world, and some are observing sin. trends and patterns and tendencies and generalities and things like that. Proverbs are wisdom literature, which means they point out, you know, how certain behaviors leads to certain ends. He also points out that a person who’s lazy will become poor, though he’s not recommending laziness. It’s the opposite. You know, if a person has loose lips, they’ll destroy things with their laziness. Immoderate speech. He’s pointing that out as a truth, not something that is to be done. So the business of bribes. Yeah, people get what they want if they can bribe. It’s one of the things of great injustice in the world that the poor can’t bribe the magistrates. And so sometimes they don’t get justice. It’s an observation. It’s not necessarily something that’s being recommended in that case. Listen, I need to take a break, but I appreciate your call. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming, so this is not the end. We just want you to know that The Narrow Path is listener-supported. We’ve got a lot of expenses. We pay for the radio time. We have no other expenses. You can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com, and donate there if you wish to. There’s also an address at the website where you can mail donations if you want, but everything at the website is free, so you don’t have to donate. That’s at thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 02 :
Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. Welcome to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Steve has nothing to sell you today but everything to give you. When the radio show is over, go to thenarrowpath.com where you can study, learn, and enjoy with free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. We thank you for supporting the listeners supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. See you at thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 01 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. There’s a couple of lines open right now if you want to call with questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or maybe to balance comment on something that you’ve heard the host say. with which you disagree. I’d be glad to talk to you about that, too. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And our next caller is Ellie from Everett, Washington. Hi, Ellie. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Yeah. Hi, Steve. Thanks for being there.
SPEAKER 07 :
I have a question, and I’m getting my friend in the car here, so bear with me. But in the background, I’d like to know about the Nazarite oath that Paul took, that he took. And the reason my background would be my friends that are going to a Torah class, one being Jewish, and they love it, and they say that, yes, there will be a reason for building the temple, and they will offer sacrifices like Paul did when he took that Nazarite vow to prove that he was a Jew, and that they do still offer sacrificial offerings for things not for their sins, but for other things. I just… Confused by that.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, you know, people who are Torah observant or Jewish roots people, I think they misunderstand Paul’s actions. And they don’t have to because he actually explained his actions in such a way that disagrees with what they think. Now, it’s true that Paul did, when he went to Jerusalem, accommodate the requests of James, who was the leader of the Jewish church there. to go and pay the fees for a group of four Nazarites who were going to the temple, and they had to offer some sacrifices that are part of the vow. And Paul agreed, and he went and did that. Now, he got into trouble doing that. He got arrested, and he got thrown in jail, and he didn’t get out of jail for at least another four years. Maybe he didn’t do the right thing. I will say this. Paul didn’t always do the right thing, and neither did Peter. I mean, the Bible does record mistakes that they made. And when Paul was on the way to Jerusalem, which ended up with him doing what you’re describing, there were prophets in certain places like Troas that said to him, don’t go. The Holy Spirit says don’t go there. Well, Paul didn’t believe it was the Holy Spirit speaking through them, so he went anyway and he got in trouble, got put in prison for four years. And, you know, maybe he was making a mistake. Some people think he was, some think he was not. But whether he was or not, he was following a procedure that he generally followed, and which he explains in 1 Corinthians 9. In 1 Corinthians 9, beginning at verse 19, Paul said, For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews. To those who are under the law, as under the law, as I became, as one who’s under the law, that I might win those who are under the law, to those who are without law, as without law. That is, if I’m with Gentiles who don’t have the law, I live like someone who doesn’t have the law, like them. Not being without the law toward God, but under the law toward Christ, that I might win those who are without the law. Now, what Paul says is, you know, I am at liberty because I’m not under the law. I can observe it or not. If people are under the law, they don’t have that liberty. If you’re under the law, you have to observe it, and you can’t choose not to. Paul says, well, I can choose to observe it or not because I’m not under it. There’s nothing wrong with me eating a kosher diet, though I don’t have to do it. But if I’m with Jews, I’m not going to rock their boat. I’m not going to offend them unnecessarily. If I’m at a kosher home, I’m going to eat kosher food. I’m going to do the Jewish things that the home practices. Why? Because I have to? No, I don’t have to. I do it because I want to win these people. I don’t want to offend them. But he says, when I’m with Gentiles who don’t keep the law, I’m free to not do it. Now, this would not be the case if he really believed that he had to keep the law. If he believed he had to keep the law, he’d have to do it even when he’s with Gentiles. That’s what observant Jews do, by the way. Observant Jews don’t just keep the law when they’re in their homes and in the synagogue. They keep the law when they’re anywhere, in a Gentile environment, anywhere. So Paul is saying, I’m free. I don’t have to keep the law. There’s no obligation to do so. But I can voluntarily do so in order to reach people who would perhaps otherwise be offended by my not doing so. And that’s what he’s saying he says. Now, a good example of that is when he goes to Jerusalem. All the Christians there, according to James, told Paul, we have multitudes of brethren who are zealous for the law. Okay, well, Paul’s thinking, okay, well, okay, this is a group that’s easy to offend. I’ll accommodate them. Not because he’s being hypocritical. It’s not hypocritical to do what you explain that you regularly do. In 1 Corinthians, he says, I regularly live like a Jew when I’m with Jews and like a Gentile when I’m with Gentiles. Not to be deceptive. I’m telling you what I do. I’m not lying to anybody. I’m telling you this is what I’m doing. I’m just being sensitive, culturally sensitive. And I believe that that’s no doubt how we’re to understand his compliance with James’ instructions when he came to Jerusalem. Paul made it very clear in 1 Corinthians 9, I’m not under the law. I’m not required to do this. If I do this, I’m doing it only to be, you know, considerate of these people’s sensitivities. And if somebody says, well, since Paul did it, we’re all supposed to do it. No, that’s the last message he was trying to give. He made it very clear at the Jerusalem Council and everywhere else he taught and in his epistles, Gentiles, I should say, Gentile believers are not required to keep the law of Moses. Even Jews are not required to. But many Jews want to because they were raised that way. That’s their culture. It’s like some people, if they’re raised Catholic and they later get saved, they may go into an evangelical church, but they may go back to the Catholic church. I’ve seen it many times because they’re more accustomed to the reverential atmosphere and the liturgy and things like that. They just feel comfortable there. They don’t think it has to be done. That’s where they feel comfortable. Now, I was raised in evangelical. If I go into one of those liturgical churches, I don’t feel comfortable. Jews who were raised observing Sabbath and kosher diet, Many times they felt much more comfortable doing that, even after they got saved. And Paul says, well, they’ve got liberty. They can do that. But that doesn’t mean that Christians, that Paul somehow thought that Christians are required to keep the law. He did not believe that. And he made it, you know, abundantly clear in his epistles.
SPEAKER 07 :
So interesting that they are Messianic Jews. And they’re doing this Bible study. This one gal is not a Jew, but they’re Messianic Jews.
SPEAKER 01 :
Let me just insert something. Let me say something. Most people who are called Messianic Jews are not Jewish. They have Messianic synagogues.
SPEAKER 1 :
Oh.
SPEAKER 01 :
But about 80% of the people who identify themselves as Messianic Jews are Gentiles. If you go to a Messianic synagogue… Something like 15 or 20% at the most are actually Jewish people. The rest are wannabe. They’re Gentiles who want to be Jews. Now, let me say this. If they were Jewish, there’s nothing wrong with them keeping these rules as Christians. But here’s the thing. Real Jews don’t believe that Gentiles are required to keep the law. Real Jews believe that the law was given to Israel alone. And they believe that Gentiles who want to please God have a different set of code called the Noahide laws. Some say there’s six or eight or 12. There’s different lists of the Noahide laws. They are not the same laws as you find in the Torah, which the Jews have to observe. But they are rules, you know, for Gentiles to not do abominable pagan things. And observant, I should say, Orthodox Jews, they do not believe. that Gentiles who are devout need to keep the law. So it’s ironic if there’s Messianic Jews who say that Gentiles have to keep the law. They’re making more requirements than the unsaved Jews do on them. Paul was very strong on the fact that we don’t have to do that. But he did argue that we should avoid offending our brother. And he had whole sections on that in Romans 5. chapters 14 and 15, and 1 Corinthians 8 through 10, about the necessity of avoiding unnecessarily stumbling someone else. So that was Paul’s policy. He explained his policy. He lived his policy. And people, for some reason, it’s in black and white very clearly. Certainly the Jerusalem Council, They should know that because at the Jerusalem Council, the Judaizers who did think that Christian Gentiles should observe the law, they met together with the apostles, and there’s who knows how long it went on, but they finally concluded that they don’t need to keep the law. They don’t need to be circumcised. They don’t need to eat a kosher diet. They don’t need to observe Sabbath. What he said, we request that you don’t eat blood and don’t eat meat sacrificed to idols and don’t eat things strangled and don’t fornicate. Why? because these Gentiles were living in areas where Jews found that kind of behavior abhorrent, and it would close down the witness of the church to those Jews. Now, of course, fornication is abhorrent, but the other things that were mentioned are don’t eat blood, don’t eat things strangled. Now, there was nothing in the law about eating things strangled. There was nothing even in the law about eating meat sacrificed to idols. These were simply practices, not from the Torah. The blood part is from the Torah, but the others are not. these were practices that were just the way that Gentiles often behaved that offended Jews. And so the Jerusalem Council said, listen, we don’t want to put it under the law, but just please, you know, avoid these things. And they said, and if you do these things, everything will be fine. In other words, if they’re putting the Gentiles under the law, they should say, first of all, the four things they mentioned should all be part of the law. And they should also include circumcision and Sabbath observance and Passover observance and, you know, synagogue attendance. And, you know, but they didn’t include any of that. They just gave these four things and said, if you do this, you’ll be well, you’ll be fine. So it’s clear that they did not put the Gentiles under the law. They avoided doing so.
SPEAKER 07 :
It just seems like it goes so against Christ to offer any sort of animal sacrifices.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, it certainly would be now, because God has shown the obsolescence of it by destroying the temple, and there’s never been a temple since. The Jews have not been able to offer animal sacrifices, even though they don’t come to Christ. And so, no atonement. Christians have the atonement of Christ and don’t need animal sacrifices, but when the temple is still standing… Jewish Christians, you know, to do the temple rituals, they’ve done it all their life. They no doubt began to do, continue to do it only thinking of Christ in it. You know, Paul said, Christ, our Passover was sacrificed for us. Well, Jewish Christians probably still kept the Passover in a kind of a traditional way, but recognized Christ as the Passover. But once the temple was destroyed, all those things went out the window.
SPEAKER 07 :
Ah, okay, good. Interesting. Well, it was the rebuttal for my argument that said, why would the Jews build another temple and offer sacrifice? So I guess that is the answer.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, there’s only one reason the Jews would build another temple. And that’s to put their thumb to their nose and thumb off Jesus. Because… Christianity teaches that Jesus died for our sins and died once and for all to cover all sins for all time, which if the Jews begin to offer animal sacrifices, saying, yeah, we don’t think so about Jesus. We’re going to go back to the old way. We’re replacing Jesus with these bulls and goats, which the New Testament says it was impossible for the bulls and goats’ blood to take away sins. But in other words, to begin to offer sacrifices again, would be specifically to register their rejection of Christ. It’d be actually a very anti-Christian thing to do. Now, the Jews are not Christians, most of them, and therefore to do something anti-Christian would be very characteristic. They’re pretty anti-Christian as it is. But, I mean, for us to say, well, how would we think about the Jews building a temple? Well, what are they building it for? They’re building it to offer animal sacrifices. The temple doesn’t have any other use than that, just for offering animal sacrifices. Well, why would you do that? Well, because you don’t believe Jesus put an end to that. You don’t believe Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice. So building a temple is basically an insult to Christ, and it’s intended as such. So I don’t know why Christians would ever be encouraged to support that. Actually, in my opinion, a Christian might as well send their money to build a Hindu or a Muslim structure as a Jewish one because all those religions reject Christ. Why should we support them financially and in their anti-Christian practices?
SPEAKER 06 :
That’s very good. Good job. Good job. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 01 :
Excellent. God bless you, Ellie. Good talking to you.
SPEAKER 06 :
God bless you. Bye-bye, Steve.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you. Bye now. Sally in Nashville, Tennessee is next. Hi, Sally. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, how are you doing? Good. A quick question. I wondered if you heard Ted Cruz’s comment that saying Christ is king is anti-Semitic, and I just wondered if you had any thoughts about that. I believe that Ted Cruz… I’ll go ahead.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you. Yeah, I believe Ted Cruz’s comment was taken out of context. If you saw the clip, which begins with him saying, Jesus is king means you hate the Jews. Well, that certainly is not true. Christians say that Jesus is king. In fact, I dare say that Ted Cruz himself identifies himself as a Christian and would say Jesus is king of the Jews. He’s the king. If you get the longer clip, whoever clipped it was trying to make Ted Cruz sound worse than he is. And I’m not saying I’m a big fan of Ted Cruz or not. I don’t mind him. He’s okay. He’s a dispensationalist. I’m not. But I’m not here to defend him, but I’m here to say that watch out for clips on the Internet because they will take someone out of context and make it sound like they’re saying something they’re not saying. In the longer clip, and you can find it online, he’s talking about some anti-Semitic movement that He’s not talking about Christians in general. He’s talking about some anti-Semitic movement. It sounds like some cult I wasn’t familiar with. That they say Jesus is king in order to say that the Jews, you know, are evil. Now, of course, Jesus is king. And I can say that, and I don’t hate the Jews. I don’t even dislike them. I don’t have anything against Jews at all. But Jesus is king. But when I heard the whole clip, I realized that, okay, he’s talking about a specific group of people, a group I’m not even familiar with. And their particular doctrinal stance was very hateful to the Jews. And they happened to say Jesus is king as something that sounds orthodox. but Ted Cruz apparently is saying when they say Jesus is king, they mean they hate the Jews. He’s not saying everyone who says that phrase hates the Jews, and yet the way it’s clipped, someone very dishonestly has clipped it and passed it along as if he is saying that about everyone who says Jesus is king. So go looking for the whole thing, and you’ll see that it’s out of context. If Ted Cruz had actually just said without context that, If you say Jesus is king, you’re saying you hate the Jews. Well, he’s wrong. Saying Jesus is king does not mean you hate the Jews. Paul said Jesus is king. Peter said he’s king. That’s what the word Christ means, the anointed king. When Paul preached in Thessalonica, it says in Acts 17, he preached that Jesus is the Christ. And the people, when they… repeated what he said. They said, he’s saying there’s another king, one Jesus. Well, that’s true. The word Christ refers to the king, the Davidic king from David’s line, the anointed one. And so Paul was declaring Jesus to be king. But Paul certainly didn’t hate the Jews. They hated him, but he didn’t hate them. He would have given his salvation for them, he said in Romans 9. He said, I could wish myself a curse from Christ if it would save my brothers, the Jews. So, There’s simply no connection in general between saying Jesus is the king and saying, you know, you don’t like Jews. But there was some group that specifically was anti-Semitic, and he mentioned it, but I didn’t recognize who they were. I never heard of them. But they are associating that declaration with hatred of the Jews. So, yeah, watch out for edited clips. Not everyone who posts clips is an honest person. And you have to wonder, I wonder why not? Why not just be honest? Why not just put the whole clip? Are they trying to give a false impression for some reason? Whatever for? You’ve got to wonder. All right, we’ll talk to David in Tampa, Florida. David, welcome.
SPEAKER 11 :
Hello, Mr. Greg. Hi. Hey, I just have a quick question. Not really a question, but what does it mean when it says that God repented making – humankind that he regretted in his heart. I can listen to the answer after I hang up. Well, don’t go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
Don’t go away because I’m not sure what verse you’re referring to. I didn’t quite recognize the verse from what you said. Could you tell me what verse you’re talking about?
SPEAKER 11 :
I don’t have the verse in front of me. I know it’s from Genesis 5.
SPEAKER 01 :
I may have not heard you fully. What is the content of the statement that you’re talking about?
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay, when humankind was sinning and he was going to destroy humanity, and it says that God repented.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, so what does it mean to say God repented and grieved in his heart? Okay, I didn’t quite hear that way before. Okay, I’m sorry. Yeah, I’ll be glad to talk about that.
SPEAKER 11 :
Okay. I’m going to hang up and listen to the, to the radio. Okay. All right.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Thanks for your call. Yeah. In Genesis six, humanity, you know, took a moral plunge to a very deep place of corruption, which God summarized the same, the thoughts and intents of every man’s heart was only evil continually. Um, Now, that might be somewhat hyperbole, but it’s very clearly describing a situation of general wickedness and evil thoughts and evil works and so forth. And it was a very widespread thing. And it led God to say, I’m going to have to clean up and start over. I’m going to have to destroy all these wicked people and start fresh with some better people. And then came the flood. Now, when it says that God saw the people’s condition, their moral condition, it says it repented him. Now, many times the Bible does say God repents. And yet there’s some other places that says God is not a man that he should repent. And some people have seen this as a contradiction, obviously. Several times the Bible does say that God does repent. And then other times it says God is not a man that he should repent. Now, when it says he’s not a man that he should repent… it’s usually when a prophet is speaking to somebody who’s under judgment from God and is saying, God is not a man that he should repent, in other words, that he would change his mind. For example, Samuel said this to Saul when King Saul had disobeyed God and Samuel said, well, God’s taken the kingdom from you and given it to somebody else who will be more obedient, has a heart after you, after God. And he says, and God’s not a man that he should repent. In other words, You may try to change my mind, but even if you could change my mind, you can’t change God’s mind. You know, he’s not like me. He’s not a man. This is going to happen. You’re not going to get a turnaround from him. That’s what God is not a man that he should repent means. But in other places, it does say he repented. Now, for example, when Jonah preached to Nineveh and the Ninevites turned from their wicked way and repented, it says God saw that they repented and he repented. of the evil he said he would do. In Jeremiah 18, there’s a teaching there in verses 7 through 10 that if God says he’s going to destroy somebody, and they turn from the wicked ways, he says, I will repent of the evil that I thought I would do. And in Genesis 6, verse 6, he says, God repented that he made man, and it grieved him in his heart. Now, there’s a couple of ways to look at this. God does repent. The word shub, one of the Hebrew words for repent is shub or shuv. And it means to change direction. It means to turn back, to return, go the other way. And so sometimes God does turn around and go the other way. There’s another Hebrew word for repent in the Bible, nacham, which means to be sorry. To be sorry is repent. Repent has both of these meanings in different cases. And I’m not looking at the Hebrew Bible. It wouldn’t do me much good if I don’t read Hebrew. But in that verse, it either means that God turned around or that he was sorry. I suspect it means he was sorry because it follows that by saying it grieved him at his heart. So when God saw how bad people were, he was sorry that this was so. It brought him grief to his heart. And so I’m thinking it’s just saying God was grieved. man’s behavior made God sorry it’s interesting it doesn’t say it made him angry you know the Bible does talk about God’s wrath and his anger sometimes but it’s interesting you think it’s like God was angry these people’s evil thoughts were only evil continually and God was angry and so he’s bringing the flood but really we see a heart of compassion there and wishing that it could be otherwise you know he’s sorry When I see my children, if they go the wrong way, it may at some level make me angry, but I care about them, and I’m sorry to see them going a wrong way. And that’s how God is. He’s got a soft heart toward people. And I think it’s just saying that he felt grief, and he felt compelled by the situation to take the course that he next would take, which was going to be very hard. on humanity, obviously, because he’s going to wipe out everybody except those eight people in the flood. Now, does God really, does God change his mind? Repent in the New Testament, metanoia is the Greek word in the New Testament, means to change the mind. It’s a different idea somewhat than the Hebrew words in the Old Testament. But does God change his mind? Well, if he does, does that mean he gets new information? Because if I change my mind, it’s because I thought something and then I got new information and had to change my mind. But God doesn’t get new information. So he wouldn’t think something once and then get new information and change his mind about that. But I do believe that God is spoken of in anthropomorphic terms throughout the Old Testament. He is spoken of in terms that we are familiar with of human behavior. God is not human. And he isn’t reacting exactly like we do. But we understand when a person… changes their mind, they do something different. And here, God, responding to prayer or responding to rebellion or something, often changes his position or changes his action. And it looks like there’s been a change of mind on his part. In fact, if we saw a person do that, it would be because they changed their mind. Comparing God to humans and speaking anthropomorphically of him in the way that we’d speak of a person is a common literary thing in the Bible. although the Bible makes it clear that we’re not to be too literal in this anthropomorphism. I’m sorry I’m out of time. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for listening. God bless.
