On this episode of The Narrow Path, Steve Gregg takes listener calls and explores pressing theological topics. He announces the cancellation of his anticipated debate with Dr. Michael Brown and discusses rescheduled speaking engagements in Northern California. Callers raise deep questions about Romans 1 and 2, debating whether God’s law is written on every human heart or shaped by culture. Steve delves into the complexity of conscience, faith, and natural revelation, drawing from scripture and real-world observations. Later, a discussion on Melchizedek sparks debate over his identity—was he a historical king, a symbolic figure, or a pre-incarnate appearance of
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 so that you can call in if you wish and we can discuss together your questions that may be on your mind about the Bible or the Christian faith, problems you have with the Bible or just curiosities about things. Maybe you disagree with the host about something, would like to balance comment, you’re welcome to call in this hour. We have no commercial breaks, just your calls and we have a few lines open. At this moment, if you want to call, the number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And I do need to announce, we greatly regret this because we’ve been looking forward to this for about six months at least. There was a scheduled debate for me with Dr. Michael Brown yesterday. over the Israel issue that was going to take place in Fresno in April 4th and 5th. And some things have come up, many of you know about them, in Dr. Brown’s life, so that at this moment he’s not really able to come. And this is a great disappointment to us. We just got it confirmed that he won’t be able to come in April. We’re hoping to reschedule that for a later time. I’ve had people emailing me from all over the country saying they wanted to fly in to observe the debate. I’m so sorry. I know lots of people are looking forward to it, none more than I was. But we will have, hopefully, I mean, hopefully the time will come where we will be able to schedule that debate again. It just happens that the last few months some issues came up in his life that have made him trim back a lot of his commitments for the time being. So, I’m so sorry to say that. I won’t be debating Dr. Michael Brown in April. However, I will be in Northern California at that same time. In fact, on the 5th, we just had it confirmed, I think, today that I’ll be speaking in a church in San Jose. On the 6th, I’ll be speaking in Santa Cruz. I’ll be speaking in the Ukiah area the next day, on a Monday. So, I’m going to be up in Northern California. Still taking, you know, invitations if you want to set something up in Northern California for me to speak there. Speaking of San Jose, our first caller today is Sandy from San Jose, California. Hey, Sandy, good to hear from you again.
SPEAKER 04 :
Oh, thanks, Steve. I always appreciate your ministry and your wisdom. Hey, regarding being in San Jose, are you free that Friday night?
SPEAKER 01 :
That is a Saturday. Well, let’s see, Friday night, I think. I think I’m still free. I think I am still free on the 4th, April 4th.
SPEAKER 04 :
I might also send you an email on it, but if you could hold that, maybe I can set up another meeting for you. Yeah, if you want to.
SPEAKER 01 :
If you want to, email me or text or something.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. Oh, you do the text. I think I have your phone number. I’ll try one of them. Okay. So, and I’ll definitely be at the meeting there on Saturday. So I’m going to ask about Romans 1, 19 to 20, and then Romans 2, 14 to 15. They’ll talk about sort of, you know, God’s laws are written on my heart, our heart, you know, part of its natural law and those other issues. I don’t, I just don’t believe that. And maybe I’m wrong for not believing that. But just from my own experience, I just don’t think they’re written on heart. I think they’re written by whatever culture I live in, you know, has an influence. So what do you say, Steve Gregg?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, those are the two passages in the opening chapters of Romans that people use to address the question of, you know, are people who never hear the gospel, are they going to be held responsible on the day of judgment since they’ve never had a chance to hear the gospel? And the two answers usually given come from those verses you mentioned, Romans chapter 1, verses 19 and 20. Paul says they are without excuse because the invisible things of God are are made known to us from the creation, from the things he’s made, so that people are without excuse. In other words, he’s saying you can simply look at nature, look at the universe, look at things, and you would know intuitively there’s a God. And it takes a very great deal of mental strain to convince oneself that there’s no God when you really look at, for example, the complexity of the cell, you know, that kind of thing. So the first answer they usually give is that, well, you know, everybody can see there’s a God from nature. And then the other thing that they use, as you know, is Romans 2, verses 14 and 15, which says, For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness between themselves and their thoughts, accusing or excusing them. Now, I do take, actually, especially the second one differently than most people do. I tend to agree with Paul that a person has no excuse for being an atheist unless he has no eyes. You know, if he can’t see, then maybe he can be forgiven for not being able to see clearly. all the evidence everywhere for God. I’m not sure that that’d be enough of an excuse, but he’d be a little less culpable for that since he wouldn’t have what everyone else can see with their eyes. It’s obvious. I was just looking. We’ve had some mosquitoes in our homes, and I was just thinking, where are they breeding? Are they breeding in our house plant water or what? And I was thinking, what an amazing thing it is that these creatures, hey, they start out as a little pollywog-looking thing, which is a little wiggler in water, and then they develop into, you know, three body parts with these mechanical legs, six legs that function together, and flight ability, and this proboscis that’s a, you know, syringe that sucks up blood. You know, that’s quite a design there. And also, how is it that, you know, even if there was going to be a mosquito, why would it start out? as a little wiggler in water, when they don’t actually live in water as adults. Same thing with frogs, you know, why do they start over there? I was thinking, you know, how evolution would have thought this through or made it happen is just beyond, you know, my view.
SPEAKER 04 :
I agree.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, so I mean, so I agree that looking at the things God has made, everybody knows there’s an intelligent designer until they absolutely have to hit themselves on the head with a hammer enough to forget it or to knock it into their head.
SPEAKER 04 :
Or as Dawkins said, when you look in the cell, just remember, it’s not designed.
SPEAKER 01 :
It’s not designed. Yeah, his first page of The Blind Watchmaker, he said, biology is the science of looking at things that look designed, you know, that look very much like they’re designed. Yeah, but he doesn’t prove that they aren’t. He just says they’re not. He says they’re not, but he doesn’t prove they’re not. How could you prove they’re not? Anyway, so that one, I’m going to say I go with the traditional ideas about that. Now, on the one about the law written in the hearts of the Gentiles, almost everybody who writes commentaries on Romans, and I certainly got this from them when I was younger, think that what Paul is saying is that even people who don’t have any access to the Bible, any revealed word of God at all, like the pagans, the Gentiles, who don’t have the law, Paul said. Yet they instinctively do it from an inward impulse, which shows that the laws are in their hearts. And this is usually used as a proof text to say, see, even unbelievers have a conscience. Now, I just want to say this. I think unbelievers do have a conscience, but I don’t think that’s what Paul is talking about. I mean, I think it’s observable that people, even little children, have a conscience until they numb it or cauterize it, as Paul used the term. Paul talks about people having their conscience cauterized. Well, once it gets cauterized, of course, you may not have You’re a sociopath, then. You basically don’t have the conscience anymore. But I think people are born with a conscience, but I don’t think Paul’s talking about that. Paul doesn’t talk about pagans. He says Gentiles who don’t have the law. Okay, well, Gentiles who don’t have the law, that’s all Gentiles. The law was never given to the Gentiles. But when they do by nature, they do by nature things contained in the law, they have the law written in their hearts. Now, I think, you know, who in the Bible has the law written in their hearts? I mean, where does that expression come from? That comes from Jeremiah 31, where God said he’s going to make a new covenant. He’s going to write the law in his people’s hearts. And, of course, Paul uses that same imagery from Jeremiah 31 over in his discussion in 2 Corinthians 3. And the writer of Hebrews quotes it, too. It’s obvious that the ones who have the law written in their hearts are the Christians. Now, how does that make sense of Paul’s statement? Well, Paul is writing to a church that’s racially divided between the Jews and the Gentiles. I won’t go into this in detail. My introduction to the Book of Romans goes into this in some detail. But there’s some measure of hostility between the Jews and the Gentiles in the Church of Rome. We see it several times. In Chapter 14, he says that the Jews apparently are the ones who want to keep a day holy. Apparently the Gentiles don’t, and the Jews want to restrict their diet, and the Gentiles don’t. So this is causing animosity between the two groups. And Paul, as a Jew himself, is addressing the Jews there, saying, listen, you think that being Jewish is better than being a Gentile. Well, a few verses later, just down in verse 17, he says, you indeed are called a Jew, you rest in the law, you make your boast in God, etc., etc. But he says in verse 23, you who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? He’s saying that a Jew has the law, but it doesn’t do him any good, Unless he keeps the law. Now, what if you see a Gentile who keeps the law? By nature. Not because he’s been given the law. The Gentiles have never been given the law. The Christian church was not given the law of Moses. But you find there are Gentiles, namely Christian ones, who have the law written in their hearts. And they do by nature. They keep the righteousness of the law. Now, Paul mentions these people a few verses later in verse 26, where he says, Therefore, if an uncircumcised man, meaning a Gentile, keeps the righteous requirements of the law. Okay, so a Gentile who keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision. He’s going to be counted as a circumcised man before God, because he keeps the righteousness, the righteous requirements of the law. Well, later in chapter 8, in verse 4, he says, the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. So, The Gentiles who keep the righteous requirements of the law, which Paul mentions in chapter 2, verse 26, he mentions them again in chapter 8, verse 40. He says, well, that’s the people who are walking in the Spirit. That’s the Christians, in other words, the ones who have the Holy Spirit. So the Gentiles who do by nature the things in the law are not the pagans. He’s not talking about pagans here. He’s talking about the Gentiles whom the Jews looked down upon because they weren’t circumcised and didn’t have the law. And Paul says, well, there’s Gentiles. Yeah, they don’t have the law. You’re right. But they do. They’re better than you at keeping the law. And he says, therefore, they will be counted as circumcised. So he’s talking about Christian Gentiles here, and he’s basically rebuking the snobbery of the Jewish Christians who thought, that the Gentiles were still kind of a lesser breed without the law. So I don’t see him saying here any statement about people who’ve never heard the law, never heard the gospel. I mean, I do agree with anyone who says, hey, human beings by nature have a conscience. Yeah, I believe that’s true. I believe that’s true. But I don’t think that’s what Paul’s talking about here. And this is the verse they usually use to prove that point. So the short answer is that Wait, there is no short answer. Don’t you know that? You should know me better than that to say the short answer. Come on, Sandy.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, okay. You agree with what I said then, that we don’t have the law of God written in our hearts naturally. It’s superimposed by the world or by the Bible or things like that, correct? Summarizing. Is that right?
SPEAKER 01 :
Yes. I would say that Paul is not saying that worldly people have the law written in their hearts. Good. But I would not deny that they do have a conscience. I’m just not going to regard that as what Paul is talking about here. I agree. I agree.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, okay, okay. Hey, Steve, keep the fourth open. I’m going to send you an email, and it’s going to be on biblical interpretive framework. That’s what I like, biblical interpretive framework.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, we can discuss that. That’d be fine.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, we’ll talk to you soon. Thanks so much, as always, Steve. Take care.
SPEAKER 01 :
Great to hear from you, Sandy. God bless you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Sandy himself is a Jewish Christian. He’s been calling me for 20-something years on this program. And so we’re going to talk to Brandon from Phoenix, Arizona next. Brandon, welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hello, Steve. How are you doing?
SPEAKER 01 :
Good, thanks.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hey, I got a question. One of my questions happened to be in Genesis chapter 14, and then, of course, it follows along to Hebrews chapter 7 about Melchizedek. Uh-huh. About who is exactly Melchizedek? Was Melchizedek, like, to your opinion, was that the theophany? Was he God in the flesh with Melchizedek, or…
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, yeah, there are three opinions about who Melchizedek is, but I’ll tell you what mine is after I’ve told you what the others are. I think the Orthodox Jewish opinion about Melchizedek is that he is Shem. Now, you remember, Shem is one of the three sons of Noah. It turns out that Abraham was descended from Shem, and Shem was still alive in the days of Abraham. We finish reading about Shem in chapter 10, of Genesis, and we don’t hear of him again until, I guess, chapter 11, when we have the lineage from Shem down to Abraham. But Shem is no longer a part of the story after we get to Abraham in chapter 11 of Genesis. But he’s still alive. He’s still alive, and we don’t know where he is or what he’s doing. So the Jews have had the same issue that anyone else has in trying to figure out, well, why did Abraham… treat Melchizedek with such deference. I mean, Abraham lived in a pagan world. Abraham was the man that God chose out of that pagan world to be his man and made promises to. How could there be another man who wasn’t Abraham? that Abram looked up to so much as he did to Melchizedek. He gave him the tithe of his spoils of battle. He received a blessing from him. He respected him, obviously. And I think the Jews can’t really think of an answer. Maybe they have more answers than one, but the main one, I think, is that Shem would be the man that Abram would probably look up to. He’d be the oldest living man on earth. the last survivor of the flood, and Shem’s own ancestor. So he would respect him and so forth. So the Jewish idea that it’s Shem is a very realistic one. Now, the trouble is with that is that the writer of Hebrews writes New Testament scripture and gives us a different answer, or at least what appears to be a different answer. There are two alternative Christian answers to this, in addition to the Jewish answers. And one of the Christian answers could be more agreeable with the Jewish one in a sense because they say that he’s a king, an ordinary man, a king of Salem. Now, the Bible says in chapter 14 and in Hebrews 7 that he was the king of Salem. Now, Salem can be a short form of the name Jerusalem. In fact, in the Psalms, there’s at least once or twice that Jerusalem is called Salem because Jerusalem just means city of peace and Salem is shalom. So, to say he’s the king of Salem, some say, well, he was the king of the nearby city of Jerusalem. Now, that might sound like a positive, except Jerusalem was a pagan city. It was a Canaanite city. It was not a godly city, as far as we know, until David’s time, a thousand years later, when David conquered the city and it became his capital. Jerusalem was just another Canaanite pagan city. So, the man who would be the king of it would not necessarily be expected to be a godly man. He’d be a Canaanite. More than that, or at least you’d think he would be, Melchizedek is said to be a priest of the Most High God. Now, this is interesting because God hadn’t ever established a religion yet. In the days before the Levites were made priests, in the time of Moses, which was probably at least 500 years after this, or close to 500 years after this, that was the first priesthood God ever established. It was 500 years after this time. There was no religion set up. In those days, the patriarchs, the oldest man, the father of the house, would offer sacrifices for his children and so forth, like Job did. But there was no temple. There was no priesthood. There was no altar that everyone went to. So how could a man be a priest of the Most High God when the Most High God had never even established a religion yet for there to be priests of? These are mysterious things. And although I suppose we could still take the view that he was Shem, we could take the view that, you know, the Canaanites in Jerusalem had, you know, were not quite so bad at that time as they later were. And so maybe they respected him and he was their king and maybe he had kind of a localized reputation. altar there. We don’t know. There’s too much not said. We only have about three or four verses about him in Genesis, and they don’t answer those questions. But some people think he was a man. It could have been Shem, I suppose, or someone else. But that things about him and his relationship with Abraham are conducive to the writer of Hebrews pointing out that this is a lot like Jesus. And therefore, probably most evangelical scholars would say, whoever Melchizedek was, he was a type of Christ. Just like we’d say David was a type of Christ, or Isaac was a type of Christ, or Moses was a type of Christ. There’s different people in the Old Testament who we say are a type of Christ. It doesn’t mean they are Christs. It just means they were who they were, but many things in their lives resembled Christ and provided sort of what we call a pattern that would later be more fully realized in the person of Christ. So some would say the significance given to him in the book of Hebrews, chapter 7, would suggest that Melchizedek was a strong type or pattern of Christ, but the assumption by most is that he was an ordinary man who was not Christ, any more than David was or, you know, Isaac was. Okay, so that’s probably the most common Christian opinion. The last opinion is that he is Christ and that he actually, you know, was what we call a theophany. Now, you raise that as a point, a possibility. I think that the writer of Hebrews leaves no doubt about this. The writer of Hebrews does not really allow that Melchizedek was a mere man, which rules out him being Shem, and rules out him being an ordinary king who simply is a type of Christ. It’s not possible, if we take Hebrews seriously, for him to be an ordinary human being. Because it says of him in Hebrews 7, it says, verse 2, he says, first, his translated is the king of righteousness. That’s the meaning of the word Melchizedek, means king of righteousness. And then it says he’s also the king of Salem or Shalom, which is the king of peace. Now, basically, those things could be true without being pointed out. many people in the Old Testament had significant meanings to their names, but there’d be no mention of it unless some point was being made of it, especially here. To say, listen, folks, this guy was the king of righteousness and the king of peace. That’s what the writer says. Where are we going with this, I wonder? Well, for Christians, Christ is certainly the king of righteousness and the king of peace. But he goes on, he was without father, without mother, without genealogy. Okay, everybody in the Bible had a genealogy. Except for Theophanes, the man who wrestled with Jacob all night and was recognized as God, he didn’t have a genealogy. He just showed up, wrestled with Jacob, and went back to heaven, apparently. That’s how the Theophanes were. They didn’t have genealogies. They didn’t have fathers and mothers. They just kind of showed up, did what they did, and then went away. And he says that he was without beginning of days nor end of life. He says, but was made like the Son of God, and by that I think he means the incarnate Jesus, he remains, that is, Melchizedek remains a priest continually. Now, how can a man remain a priest continually unless he lives continually? And then he says, now consider how great this man was. Who, Melchizedek? Isn’t the writer of Hebrews, especially in the first seven chapters, pointing out how insignificant everyone in the Old Testament was compared to Jesus? He never says, think how great the angels are. No, he says the angels are nothing compared to Jesus. Well, how about Moses? Well, he was nothing compared to Jesus. He was just the house, and Jesus was like the builder of the house. Well, what about Joshua? Well, he took people in the promised land, but it wasn’t the final one. No, Jesus is the one who brings us in the promised land. What about Aaron? Well, he’s nothing compared to Jesus because Jesus is of another priesthood. In other words, in the earlier chapters, the writer is going through all these famous, important people in the Old Testament only to say they’re not really that great. Jesus, you know, eclipses them completely. But then now he’s talking about Melchizedek. He changes his tongue completely. Consider how great this man was. Well, wow. Why consider how great this man was when the whole purpose of the book of Hebrews is to show that nobody is very important except Jesus? Unless, of course, this man is Jesus. Now, look what it says in verse 8, Hebrews 7, 8. Here, and he means, you know, in the Old Covenant temple system, which was present at the time this was written. Here, mortal men, meaning the Levites. received tithes. But there, meaning in the story of Abraham meeting Melchizedek, that’s what he’s referring to, but there he received them of whom it is witnessed that he lives. Now notice, Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham. Unlike the Levites, the Levites are mortal. He says, here mortal men receive tithes. But there, not so much. No. He wasn’t a mortal man. There, the one who received them was not a mortal man. That’s the contrast he’s saying. And it says of him, it is witness that he lives. It is witness today that this man, Melchizedek, lives. Well, where is that witness given? Where is it witnessed that Melchizedek lives? The writer acts as if the readers know that, yeah, it’s commonly said that Melchizedek lives. Well, this would be true if Melchizedek is Jesus. Because it’s one of the main confessions of the church that Christ is alive. Christ rose from the dead. He lives today. The writer of Hebrews says there is a commonly known witness known to his readers that Melchizedek lives. But this would only be true if he is Jesus. Then there’s more. There’s plenty in here. If you go down to verse 23. in 24, there, meaning under the Old Testament system with the Levites, there were many priests because they were prevented by death from continuing. They couldn’t just live forever. They had to be replaced every generation by successors. But he, meaning Melchizedek, because he continues forever, has a non-transferable or unchangeable priesthood. Now, unlike the Levites… They didn’t have a non-transferable priesthood. The priest died, and the priesthood was transferred to his son. When he died, it was transferred to his son. But Melchizedek and Jesus have a priesthood together that is not transferable. It does not pass from one man to another. But if Melchizedek was a priest of this order, and Jesus also is a priest of this order 2,000 years later, How can it be appreciated that it doesn’t pass from one to another unless Jesus is not another? Unless they’re the same one? To me, I don’t think anyone can really do justice to the writer of Hebrews’ ideas without saying that Melchizedek had to be a Christophany or a Theophany, an appearance of Christ. People may find clever ways to deal with one or two of these statements and not make it so, but the whole chapter is just thoroughly about that. Okay, I need to take a break. We have another half hour coming, so don’t go away. You’re listening to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds, so don’t go away.
SPEAKER 06 :
As you know, the Narrow Path radio show is Bible radio that has nothing to sell you but everything to give you. So do the right thing and share what you know with your family and friends. Tell them to tune in to the Narrow Path on this radio station or go to thenarrowpath.com where they will find topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all the radio shows. You know listeners supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg? Share what you know.
SPEAKER 01 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. If you’d like to be on the program, the number to call is 844-484-5755. It looks like our last open line has possibly been filled, so you may get a busy signal. Try a little later. We may be able to get you through. 844-484-5737. Tracy from Woodburn, Massachusetts. Thanks for waiting. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. Uh-huh. I have a question, something that has plagued me for a long time now, probably, I don’t know, 20 years. Okay. And it’s definitely unorthodox and probably sounds strange. But my question is this. If the devil is the root of everyone’s troubles everywhere all through time, why can’t we just pray for the devil and ask God to change his heart or soften his heart and his mind so he no longer wants to corrupt people? I’ve asked a pastor before and other people who study the Bible, and I’ve never really gotten an answer that satisfies me. They just say, you can’t.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay. Well, a couple things come to mind. One is, even though we pray for God to change the heart of many people, it doesn’t always happen. There is still free will on the part of people. Now, the devil is not a people. He’s not one of us. But the fact is that we can’t just say, oh, we can solve all the problems in Russia. We’ll just pray for God to change Putin’s heart. You know, we’ll make him a Christian. Well, I mean, it could happen. God can do exceptional things. But generally speaking, the way God changes people’s heart is through prayer. providential circumstances and persuasion and conviction of sin. And some people just resist it completely. Other people cave into it. But you can’t just make everyone a Christian by praying, okay, God, please may everyone repent of all their sins and come to Christ. There’s nothing wrong with praying for that. But if you think it’s going to happen by this time Tuesday, it’s probably there’s going to be some disappointments in all likelihood. Now, the other thing is the devil. I think the devil serves a purpose. I don’t think that his change of heart is in the works. I don’t think it’s even part of God’s plan. I believe the reason there is a devil is because God has use for him as a devil. And if he did not, he wouldn’t be around anymore. Because, you know, the Bible says time is coming when God’s going to throw the devil into the lake of fire. And that will be pretty much the end of him. Why doesn’t he do it now? Why didn’t he do it 6,000 years ago? Why didn’t he do it as soon as he tempted Adam and Eve, or even before he did? Why did God allow the devil to exist, especially when he has absolutely no obligation to? God’s not obligated to the devil or anyone else to let them exist. So everyone’s existence, including the devil’s, is contingent on God’s choices about the matter. And God has chosen for there to be a devil. Now, some people believe that God actually didn’t, you know, that he made him as a devil to be a tester, and others believe he made him as a good angel who then rebelled and became a devil. But whichever view we take, one thing that all people agree with is the devil today is the devil. Whether he was always that way or became that way is irrelevant to the point we’re looking at because the question is, why does God allow it to be? Why can’t I just pray that God will take the devil away or make the devil become a Christian or whatever? I believe that it’s God’s will for there to be a devil until it’s not. That is, there will come a time when he doesn’t need him anymore, doesn’t have a use for him anymore. He’ll throw him in the lake of fire. The fact that he has not done that yet tells me he’s not done with him yet. Now, what does the devil do that’s of any value in the grand scheme of things? Well, he does a lot of harm. He does a lot of, you know, he leads a lot of people into sin. He afflicts a lot of people with horrible afflictions. Demons possess people. It’s a horrible sight, horrible thing to go through. And even when people aren’t possessed, the devil’s always deceiving and leading astray and making people’s lives and relationships break up. I mean, he’s just a bad guy. So what possible use could he be? Well, it depends on what we think the purpose of our existence is, because the devil obviously is made to interact with us. It’s not a mistake that God put Adam and Eve in a garden which was the same garden the devil was in. You know, there’s a lot of gardens other parts of the earth he could have put the devil in if he wanted to. He made the devil to interact. Why? What in the world is the sense of that? Because, unfortunately, too many people have never really thought through why we even exist. I think a lot of people know so little about theology that they think that we exist just to go to heaven and be happy forever. No, that’s not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God made man for a purpose, and that purpose is stated at the very first reference to God making man. In Genesis 1, 26 and 27, God said, let us make man in our image, and let us give him dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and all the animals that we made. In other words, God made people to rule the planet, to rule the planet under God, along with God, as partners with God, ruling the planet. God made a whole planet, filled it up with living things, and said, okay, let’s make somebody to be in charge of this. So humans were created to be the rulers. That’s why humans have free will. You can’t rule unless you make decisions. That’s the very essence of ruling, is you’re making decisions about things. And so man differs from the rest of creation in that he has this free will because he’s made to rule, to make decisions, to be an agent of God. stewarding the planet that God made. That’s what the Bible says. But, of course, you don’t just, you know, we see in the last administration, and I’m not trying to be political here, but it’s obvious to anyone who looks at it, that in the choice of cabinet members and so forth, not the present one so much, I don’t think, but in the last one, it seems like no vetting was done. No serious consideration was done about qualifications for people. It gave them great power, immense power. People who are arguably mentally ill were given power over the nuclear codes and things like that. And I have no idea why a leader would appoint people like that unless the leader himself either was malignant and malicious or else himself incompetent. But the point is God is not malicious or incompetent. He’s not going to put in charge of the world. some unvetted rookie, you know. Every person who has the opportunity to someday reign with Christ, and the New Testament says it’s our destiny. If you go all the way to Revelation 5, verse 10, it says that he’s redeemed people out of every nation, kindred, and tongue, and has made them a kingdom of priests, and it says they shall rule on the earth. That’s what God has in mind for us. And Paul tells Timothy, if we endure, we will reign with Christ. It says in Romans that if we are sons of God, we are heirs of God. And we’re joint heirs with Christ. We’re going to inherit the world with Christ. That’s what Jesus said to his disciples. Blessed are the meek. They shall inherit the earth. This is the plan. It’s all the way through Scripture. From Genesis through Revelation. This is why God made us to reign with him. But again… people can’t be given power and authority and responsibility if they’re going to blow it. And that’s why there has to be the testing. And there had to be a tester. The word tempter, which is a term sometimes used for the devil in the New Testament, it literally means a tester. Humans have to be tested. What are they being tested for? They’re tested to see if they’ll be loyal to God or not. If God’s going to put people in authority over his creation, he’s only interested in ones who are going to be loyal to him, not rebellious against him. Adam and Eve rebelled against him. They were tested and they failed. Every one of us is tested. That’s what the devil’s there for. He tests us. Will you be loyal to God or will you not? Some will, some will not. The ones who will, if we endure, will reign with him, the Bible says. Those who come with Christ in Revelation 17 are said to be called and chosen people. and faithful. Okay, so the Christians who are going to reign with Christ in the end are ones who have been shown to be faithful. Faithfulness is tested. Loyalty is tested. And that’s what the devil’s there for. He’s there to test our loyalty. Now, you might say, but some of the things the devil does don’t seem to be related to that. Well, hard to say. You know, pain and suffering caused by the devil, deception of the devil, you know, evil things he tempts people to do. All of those things are simply testing our loyalty. When I’m really sick, will I still praise God like Job did? When I’m tempted to do evil, will I say, no, I’m going to be loyal to God like Joseph did? Joseph said to the wife of Potiphar, you know, how can I do this evil thing and sin against God? He was tested. We’re all tested. We’re tested many times throughout our lives. And if we are faithful unto death, it says in Revelation 2.10, that is, if in the end we have not defected and we’ve passed all the tests, or at least the ones that, you know, if you fall, repentance is okay, too. I mean, repentance is necessary, and that’s passing the test ultimately, even though you failed a pop quiz. But the point here is that those who are faithful unto death will receive the crown. That means they’ll reign. Rulers have crowns. They’ll receive the crown of life, Revelation 2.10 says. So the purpose of the devil is to test us to see if we’ll be faithful or unfaithful. Now, once we understand that, it puts everything in our life in a different perspective. But it’s the biblical perspective, which I don’t know why preachers don’t preach it. I think it would help a lot of Christians to know this. I don’t know how many preachers know it, but it’s the Bible says it all the way through. So that’s why the devil’s there. So why don’t we just pray that the devil be converted? Well, I don’t know that he can be converted, but if he could, then we’d have to have another devil made to replace him because the devil is the adversary. The devil is the tempter, the tester. And, you know, even Jesus had to be tempted. You know, Jesus, it says in Luke 4.1, was driven into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit to be tempted by the devil. So even he had to be tested. But he passed every test. Adam and Eve didn’t, and each of us probably passed some of them and failed some of them. But the ideas could pass as many as possible because if you’re faithful in little things, God will make you rule over great things, he said in a couple of Jesus parables. So that’s the picture there that the Bible gives us. And so I hope that clarifies. All right. God bless you. Thank you. Great to hear from you. Thanks. Let’s see, Anthony in Napa, California. Welcome.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, Steve. I kind of had a personal question. I wanted to get your position. My daughter is becoming a woman. She’s almost 18 years old. She’s dating now, and my wife and I were having a discussion whether or not it would be right for her to begin birth control. And so we’re kind of like split on it. And so I kind of wanted to get your take on that whole subject.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, first of all, I’m not a fan of birth control in any case, but that’s a separate issue. When you’re raising a daughter… who’s a young adult, you need to prepare her for the fact that she’s almost old enough to be out on her own, and there’s going to be temptations of that kind. Now, you didn’t say whether she’s a Christian or not. Is your daughter a Christian? Yes, she is. Okay. Well, I’m going to suggest that you need to take a fatherly role in her life, And guard her against the kind of men who are a danger to her. Now, I realize these days any man might be a danger. Even Christians sometimes succumb and so forth. But there should be some kind of vetting of the men she’s allowed to go out with. She is still under your roof, I take it. As long as she’s under your roof, you are essentially in control. That doesn’t mean you don’t give her any liberty. Of course, as a child is growing, you give them more and more liberty as they show themselves trustworthy. But a person doesn’t earn liberty just by getting older. They earn more responsibility and liberty to do what they want by showing themselves to be reliable, just like we were talking earlier. Now… I don’t know how much your daughter respects your authority, but she needs to be informed that she has a father given to her for her protection. And a lot of times we have to be protected from ourselves. We all have to recognize that we are prone to fall. We’re prone to think wrongly and to get things wrong. And that’s why God has given children parents to guide them in the right way. And I think that Although it sounds old-fashioned, I believe that a father should require that a young man who wants to date his daughter come and be interviewed. Now, your daughter might object to that. If so, then you should start raising her this way earlier, I think, because sometimes when children are raised to think that they’re, now that I’m old, I’m free to do what I want, you have to realize, no, as long as she’s your dependant, As long as she survives by your magnanimity, she eats and dresses and wears clothes and lives in a house that you provide, she pretty much has to do so on your terms. Now, I realize she might run away. People do that sometimes. And so I don’t know how to prevent that from happening. I’m just telling you what I think. I don’t think giving her birth control is a good idea because that’s basically saying I don’t have any confidence that you’re going to remain pure. Now, that’s in a sense giving permission. That’s like giving her permission. Okay, you know, I really kind of wish you wouldn’t have sex with him, but since I figure there’s a good chance you will, I’m going to give you these pills. That’s almost like saying, don’t worry, I won’t be surprised if you’re having sex, you know. I think… I think what you should do mostly is say, listen, you’re at an age now where new temptations are going to be in your life. Men are going to be wanting to take you out, and we’re going to let people do that. But men don’t always have the best of intentions, and even the ones who do have the best of intentions have certain weaknesses. And I remember a Christian man was talking to his son who was going out on a date, and the The father was given very strong restrictions about what he was going to allow him to do and not be alone with the girl in the car and things like that. And the son said, well, dad, don’t you trust me? And the dad said, I wouldn’t trust me. You know, I mean, a smart man, a smart man will say, you know, I’m flesh. I’m flesh. And we live in a day where there’s, you know, inflamed sexuality more than most times in history in our country. And we’re all prone to fall. Even good young men sometimes fall. So I would just say, you know, it’s not that I don’t trust you. I don’t trust human nature. And therefore, I want to protect you from unnecessary things. Now, in the case of your daughter, if she were to get pregnant or contract some disease or something like that through sex, who’s going to be responsible for that if she’s living under your roof? Who’s going to have to pay for the medical bills? Who’s going to have to pay for the birth? Who’s the baby going to be taken care of by when she has to go out and work? I mean, obviously, as long as she’s under your support, she’s under your rule. Now, I’m not saying you have to bear down like, you know, like with a rod of iron. I don’t think parents who do that to teenagers are very wise because teachers, I mean, I should say teenagers, rebel when they feel like they’re being cramped down too much. But you need to make it very clear to her that what you’re suggesting and the rules you’re making and the precautions you’re taking are reasonable. She may still reject them and she may sneak out and do things you can’t stop her from doing. especially when she’s 18, you can’t do anything about it. But, you know, I think you simply have to make an appeal to her. Now, honestly, I wouldn’t give her birth control, partly because I don’t think birth control is a good thing. And secondly, I think it’s just basically saying, here’s kind of my quasi idea. uh, permission. It’s sort of like when, uh, a president says to, let’s say Vladimir Putin, you can invade Ukraine if it’s, if you don’t do it very deep. Yeah. Just, just a minor incursion will, will permit that. You know, we’ve got some, we have some rules here. We have some lines we don’t want you to cross, but it’s okay if you invade a little bit. Uh, you know, if a father says, I really don’t want you to live irresponsibly, but I’ll give you some birth control because I’m actually going to let you be a little bit irresponsible. Um, I don’t know the relationship you have with your daughter. I know that many Christian parents do not have good relations with even their Christian children when it comes to trying to control them. Parents are afraid to do it. But I’d say overcome your fear. Speak the truth in love. Take responsibility over your daughter’s purity and safety. And she’ll be glad you did when she’s mature and married and can appreciate the fact that she had a dad who did that. And if you don’t do that, She may not rebel as quickly, but later in life she’ll say, especially if she gets into trouble, she’ll say, Dad, why didn’t you protect me from that? You know, this is the hard part about being a parent. Kids don’t like to be parented when they get older. They don’t think they should be parented, but they’re still dependent. Whatever trouble they get into, it’s going to fall back on you, your responsibility. You know, if it’s your responsibility, you’ve got the authority to make the decisions. And so you’ve got to use your own wisdom and your own tact. to do that, but those are the principles I would recommend.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay. Thank you for your input. I have one other question that’s kind of a personal question since we’re in the subjects of sex. My wife and I were going back and forth with that conversation and it kind of led into our sexual life and um she she asked me to ask you uh what what is the biblical standpoint for uh as far as you know in the bedroom uh oral sex is that she all right let me just say this the bible the bible doesn’t say anything about that specifically um
SPEAKER 01 :
So I can’t give you biblical advice about that. I would say that there are couples that for physical reasons may be prevented from ordinary vaginal intercourse because of health issues or something like that, in which case I don’t think I would forbid manual or other kinds of pleasuring of your spouse. I don’t know that that would be wrong at all. But if people can have and enjoy regular intercourse, I don’t really recommend that they look for additional things to do. Now, I’m not saying that they do other things that it’s forbidden, because I don’t know of any kind of sexual behavior that’s forbidden to a husband and a wife. So I’m not going to make a rule about that. My concern is when husbands and wives… they almost have an… I’m not saying this about you and your wife. I’m just saying that I hear others ask about this kind of thing, too. Husbands and wives sometimes have succumbed to the spirit of our age where they want to have continual newness in their sexual relationship. They don’t want to get bored with each other. Now, I’m not saying that there’s nothing they can do legally before God to do, but I’m concerned about the tendency. I want to guard my heart with all diligence, and if I find myself always wanting to find new and novel things different than ordinary sex, to keep me sexually satisfied, then I think I’m on a path that leads many people into great discontent with normal sex or even marital sex. I mean, if a person’s always looking for novelty in sex, then they may be looking for novel partners eventually. Because once you’re on that slope, where does that end? Now, again, I’m not making this kind of a rule about this. I’m saying we need to manage our personal lives and our marital lives in such a way that we’re paying attention. First of all, what’s happening in my heart? How is my heart being shaped about this whole thing? Can I be content with ordinary relations with my wife? If so, I don’t. I’d like to remain in that condition, but if I’m experimenting with novel things so that ordinary relations now are boring and blase, uh, who knows? Uh, maybe my wife herself would become blase and boring if I allowed it to go that way. I, I don’t really, you know, I can’t tell anyone how, what they do in their bedroom. I can only give reflections like those. And, uh, So if you guys are doing that, I don’t condemn you, but I just say keep an eye on what’s happening in your own mind about your sexuality because we live in an age where people become addicted to more and more novel ideas just because to them that sexual high that they got when they were teenagers or newly married is the kind of thing that they want to keep that high going on. And I don’t know that human beings are made to have that kind of thing going on to the same intensity all their lives. So that’ll be between you and your wife and God. I’m going to have to leave it as that. Lee from DeSoto, Texas. I don’t have much time, I’m sorry to say, but go ahead. I thought I hit the button. Maybe I didn’t. Let me find out here. Okay, I hit a button, but it didn’t open. Gene? There you are. Lee, can you hear me? Yeah, go ahead.
SPEAKER 02 :
My question is about 2 Chronicles 7.14 and the phrase when God says, then I will hear from heaven. I understand that God is saying he’s going to dwell there in the temple, but when he says he’s going to hear from heaven, who is he hearing from? Is it the other part of the Godhead? Is he dwelling there without them and he needs to counsel with them? Or is that a metaphoric statement that’s because it’s used other parts of the Old Testament also, then I will hear from heaven. So I’d like to hear your comments on that.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, I don’t think there’s anything especially, you know, needing a special explanation. God in the Old Testament is described as being in heaven. He sometimes comes down from heaven or sends angels down from heaven. You know, and he hears from heaven. And he answers from heaven sometimes. Now, it’s true, there are places where the Bible talks about him being in the temple, in the Holy of Holies. And when Solomon built the temple… You know, God said, you know, or I guess he prayed this, that, you know, whenever we’re in trouble, if we pray toward this temple, please hear and come. But I believe even then Solomon’s idea was that, you know, we pray toward the temple, which is a symbol of your presence. But when God hears, he’s still hearing from heaven. Even when he made the temple, he said, you know, heaven, even the heavens can’t contain you. You know, what house could I make to be your house? He’s basically saying, I know, God, you don’t really live literally in this house because you’re in heaven. So I just think hearing from heaven is just a normal statement that God hears. I don’t think we have to think of more than one person of the Godhead or something in a statement like that. It’s just a general statement that you call out and I’ll hear you. and I’ll respond. Okay. All right. God bless you. I’m out of time, I’m sorry to say. You’ve been listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live Monday through Friday. We are a listener-supported ministry. We spend lots of money. We pay it to the radio stations so that they’ll play this program for people to hear, like you. If you’d like to help us pay the radio stations, you may. You can write to us at TheNarrowPath, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Everything’s free there, though. You can donate there if you wish at thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
