This episode of The Narrow Path offers profound insights into biblical prophecy and interpretation as callers join to seek clarity on perplexing scriptural passages. Steve Gregg responds with expertise and compassion, unpacking complex scriptural allusions in Daniel 9 and dissecting symbolic language in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. The show also engages with the practice of speaking in tongues within church settings, balancing respect for diverse expressions of faith with a call for biblical order and clarity in worship. A must-listen for anyone grappling with understanding biblical narratives in depth.
SPEAKER 02 :
This is the best of the Narrow Path Radio broadcast. The following is pre-recorded.
SPEAKER 01 :
Welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Program, hosted by Steve Gray. Steve is not in the studio today, so calls from listeners will not be able to be taken. In the place of the usual format, we’ve put together some of the best calls from past programs. They cover a variety of topics important to anyone interested in the Bible and Christianity. In addition to the radio program, The Narrow Path has a website. You can go to www.thenarrowpath.com, where you can find hundreds of resources that can all be downloaded for free. And now, please enjoy this special collection of calls from Steve Gregg and The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Our first caller today is Kent from Salinas, California. Kent, good to hear from you. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 11 :
Hi, Steve. Good to hear from you, too. Yeah, so today I kind of have a question that is pretty controversial, and I understand that, and the whole point of me bringing it up isn’t to be controversial, but to just understand what the Scripture is saying more. It’s about homosexuality, and I was wondering, particularly in the New Testament, It seems to me that, you know, from what I’ve been taught, that homosexuality is forbidden in Scripture. However, I have been listening to other people and, you know, and I have friends who disagree with that. And they often take the Romans one passage and try to explain how that was in regards to… Pedophilia? Yeah. And I’m just wondering what your take on it is and how you would go about explaining to people, you know, to back up your point or how this makes sense.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, there’s just a few passages in the Old Testament and a couple passages in the New Testament that address the issue of homosexuality directly. But let’s leave those out of consideration for the moment, since our homosexual friends have found ways to interpret those in ways that satisfy them. And even if I don’t consider their interpretation to be very responsible, they do. And so we get nowhere arguing that point. Let’s talk about this another way. Do your friends believe in fornication? Yes. They believe it’s okay to fornicate?
SPEAKER 11 :
Oh, no. They believe that what’s written in the Bible about fornication.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, so they’re against fornication. So would they say that same-sex fornication is more permissible than opposite-sex fornication?
SPEAKER 11 :
No.
SPEAKER 08 :
No, okay. So they don’t believe in fornication, so they don’t believe in sex outside of marriage. Is that correct? Right, right. So are they arguing for homosexual marriage?
SPEAKER 11 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Okay. Okay, we’re on to something here. So where is marriage defined for us?
SPEAKER 11 :
I would think that you would go back to the book of beginnings in Genesis.
SPEAKER 08 :
That would be a good start, right, definitely, because Genesis 2.24 is the first reference to marriage in the Bible, and it apparently is very important because Jesus quotes it when he’s asked about marriage. And Paul quotes it when he’s talking about the same subject. So both Jesus and Paul look to Genesis 2.24 as the norm for defining marriage. Of course, that verse says, For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. And when Jesus quoted it, he actually added in Matthew 19, he said, Have you not heard what is written? that God made them male and female and said, for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. So Jesus made it very clear that he’s talking about heterosexual marriage here. And he said that’s what marriage is. Now, he was saying that to answer a question they had about divorce. The question was not about homosexuality or even marriage directly, except it was about divorce. But Jesus said, well, all these questions related to marriage… have got to take into consideration what marriage is. And when we look at what marriage is, it is defined for us, Jesus said, in Genesis chapter 1, where it says God made them male and female, and Genesis 2, where it says a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife. So Jesus is basically saying, this is what marriage is defined as, and if God makes the two one, then don’t let anyone put them apart. So he answered the question about divorce, by reminding them of what the definition of marriage is. Now, Paul, likewise, when he talked about marriage in Ephesians 5, he also quoted Genesis 2.24. And he said that, he first of all said that a wife should submit to her husband as to the Lord, and the husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church, because the marriage picture is a picture of Christ and the church. And he said, for this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and plead to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. And Paul said, this is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. So, none less than Jesus and none less than Paul both defined marriage on the basis of Genesis 2.24. And Jesus specifically linked it with God making male and female so that they could be married in the manner described. So, Certainly, the Bible is very clear what marriage is. Marriage is one man and one woman joining together for life. Now, for what purpose? Well, we know that when God made male and female, he gave them the command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. So it’s interesting, too, because God had already made lots of companions for man before he made the woman. There were lots of animals, and you know animals can be very good companions up to a point. But God said it’s not good for man to be alone without a certain kind of companion. And the animals were not the kind of companion for a simple reason. He wanted man to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. So he made a companion for man that was a woman so that the man and the woman could be fruitful. So obviously he made marriage as opposed to mere friendship or mere affection. He made marriage in order that Children could be born. In Malachi chapter 2, again talking about marriage, rebuking the Jews because of their easy attitude toward divorce, he says in Malachi 2.15, and did not he make them one? He means the male and the female. He made them one. Again, he’s alluding to Genesis 2.24 where God made the two one. And then he says in this, and why one? That is, he asks the question, why did God make them one? Why did God create marriage? And it says, because he seeks godly offspring. Okay, so it’s very clear that every time the Bible talks about marriage, it’s talking about this arrangement we read of in Genesis. A man, a woman, linked for life, becoming one because God’s seeking godly offspring from them. Now, it’s quite obvious that you can’t just substitute one party in there. Let’s say substitute the man for a second woman, two women, or the woman substitute her for another man, having two men, or have a man and his horse, or a woman and a little child. None of those things would work out because they go against the purpose of marriage. They go against the definition of marriage, and they go against the purpose of marriage. They’re not reproductive marriage. They’re not potentially reproductive situations. Now, of course, in a fallen world, there are people who are heterosexually married legitimately who still can’t have children. They’re barren or whatever. And therefore, their marriage is, because of the fall, I believe, perhaps we could say subnormal in that one respect, but it’s still a marriage. That is, it’s not a reproductive situation. Family, but that’s not their fault. I mean, that wasn’t their choice. That was just the results of bad fortune, or we could even say the providence of God in their case. But we don’t redefine marriage in their case. Marriage is pretty much a standard defined thing. Now, if someone says, well, we want to redefine marriage and say two men or two women can be in marriage. Now, it’s interesting that there’s, to my knowledge, never been a society in history that ever took that approach. Although there have been many societies that believed that homosexuality was fairly normal, that is to say there’s been lots of societies that believed in fornication, whether it’s heterosexual or homosexual. Most pagan societies were very tolerant of all kinds of fornication, including same-sex fornication. But there’s never been a society, to my knowledge, that ever defined marriage as a same-sex union. So the question is really going to be, are we going to approve of fornication? Well, as a Christian, we can’t do that. Or are we going to change the definition of marriage? Change it from what God said? Change it from what Jesus said? Change it from what every society, including pagan societies, have always said? In other words, we’re going to be the first generation in history, anywhere, to say, we know more what marriage should be than anybody before us has. To my mind, that’s an extremely self-serving and arrogant position. It may be there are times when we have to say, well, you know what? Our ancestors, they didn’t seem to have thought this through very well, and we’re thinking it through, and I think we’re right in this case. But when our ancestors means everyone who’s ever lived, every society that’s ever been on the face of the earth, And we are suddenly the innovators who suddenly hit the light went on in our heads. Hey, you know what? Everybody’s been wrong forever about marriage. I’m the smart guy. Me and my generation under 30 were the smartest people who were ever born. And we can change the fundamental bedrock of society by redefining marriage, even though God who invented marriage is the one who defined it. But who cares about him? Now, we can say, well, we do care about him, but we’re just going to reinterpret him. Well, not very naturally. It’s a forced thing. Anyone who wants to say that marriage can be two people of the same sex and that that’s okay with God, they’re not going to find a positive scriptural case for that. What they’re going to be saying is, well, in spite of the fact that the Bible teaches something other than that, we believe that God isn’t all that concerned about sticking with that norm. We think there’s some flexibility there. Well, there’s no evidence in Scripture that God’s real flexible about that. So, you know, in other words, we have to ask ourselves, why are we arguing for this? Is it because of sentimentality? Because, after all, we have some friends. I have friends who are homosexuals. It doesn’t make me happy. to keep them from being able to be paired with somebody they love. But I’m not the one who makes up the rules. I’m not the person who invented the human sexuality. I’m not the one who gets to change what God has defined and what God has put together. You know, if we say, well, I just can’t hardly stomach the idea of my dear friend having to be celibate all his life. Well, you know what? There’s been Christians who’ve been celibate all their lives throughout history. There’s monks and nuns who’ve been celibate all their lives. There’s also just ordinary Christians who’ve never found a mate and had to be celibate all their lives. Why, for the first time, is he exempt from the need to remain celibate simply because his tastes are for the same sex? I don’t understand how that gives him a pass that he doesn’t have to be celibate where he would have to be if he was unmarried and straight. You know, it doesn’t make sense. It’s just sentimentality that’s been pumped into our heads in the past 30 or 40 years through the media and through education. But, you know, as soon as we’re going to let people get married, not because it makes sense biblically, but because we feel sorry for them not being able to get married, we’re going to have to start letting people leave their wives because they found someone they love more. And they just don’t love their wife anymore. Now, of course, we say our society already lets people do that. True. But Christians don’t. People who say they are Christians and do are not Christians because they’re not following Christ. Christ made it very clear what God has joined together. Let not man put asunder. But that sticks two people together sometimes who don’t love each other anymore. What a horrible thing to impose upon them. You know what? Sometimes morality is inconvenient. And… Modern Christians don’t like inconvenience. And modern non-Christians are absolutely intolerant of inconvenience. But Christians have to decide, am I going to change God’s rules because I feel sorry for someone who has to keep them and it’s hard to keep? Or am I going to stand by what God says, knowing that what God has ordained is what is best for people, even if they don’t think so? A lot of times little children have to be told by their parents not to do certain things that the children think would be enjoyable, but the parents know something they don’t and know that that’s not going to be good for them. Well, God’s like an all-wise parent, and we’re like children. And, you know, if we say, well, I want to do such a thing, why would God say no? Well, trust me, he has his reasons. And, you know, if our whole society forgets about God completely and reinvents marriage… at least within a generation, I imagine we’ll find out what those reasons were. And it’s probably not going to be pretty, and it might not be easy to go backward from there.
SPEAKER 11 :
Okay, yeah, that helps a lot. I was wondering, though, in that Romans, in Chapter 1, where you talked about how they exchanged natural relationships with a natural relationship. And then in Corinthians… how men naturally are, you know, they are naturally accustomed to have short hair and women are naturally accustomed to have long hair. You know, in regards to people and the setting of their culture, you know, I’m just wondering what the difference is between using the word natural and those two two different occasions where natural is brought up in Scripture.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, well in 1 Corinthians 11 when it said, does not nature itself teach you that for a man to have long hair it’s a shame to him? It certainly is not talking about something in the natural order because there isn’t anything in the natural order that teaches us that at all. For example, baby girls are not born with long hair and baby boys with short hair. That would be natural. Or If a man’s hair would not naturally grow as long as a woman’s hair, then that would be natural, too. Nature would be teaching us that God doesn’t want men to have long hair because he wouldn’t be giving them the ability to grow it that long. Or if he was saying the world of nature, the animal world, teaches us that men should not have long hair. Well, that doesn’t make sense because in many species, it’s the male that has the plumage. Almost all birds… that have a lot of color. It’s the male that has the color and the fancy plumage to court the female. The female is rather plain. Among lions, the male has the long hair. So, I mean, what is it about nature that teaches us that long hair is wrong? Well, what teaches us, it’s human nature, it’s our natural instincts that men should not dress like women in clothing or hairstyles. In other words, if a man is starting to wear clothes the styles of clothing or hair that are in his culture, those of a woman, then he’s cross-dressing. However, in different cultures, different styles are those of men and from women. For example, Paul, after he says all of that, in 1 Corinthians 11, 16, says, Yet if anyone seems to be contentious, we don’t have these customs. We don’t have any such custom, neither do the churches of Christ. Paul himself, for example, took a Nazarite vow. As a man, that meant he had to grow his hair long. That’s what the Jewish law permitted. But he had a different culture than the Corinthians. The Corinthians were Greeks. He was a Jew. The point here is that whatever the customs of your society are, there are some recognized styles that are for men and some for women. Now, there have been societies, medieval Europe, for example, where it was very normal for men to have very long hair. Not so in Greece in Paul’s time. Not so much even so now, although it’s fairly normal. You still see a lot of men with long hair, and they don’t look like they’re women. In some times of history, men wore powdered wigs. I don’t know if any of us would be caught dead in a powdered wig now, but that was the culture of the time. The women had their own styles. But whatever society you’re in, if there’s a style of clothing or hairstyle or whatever that’s for women and a style that’s for men in your society, then you naturally will conform to the ones for your gender because it would feel unnatural to don the appearance of the opposite gender. At least Paul assumed it would be unnatural, and I think it is. I think people have to get over natural instincts if they start cross-dressing, and that’s what Paul’s referring to. I think there’s something natural in man and in woman that knows that, that there’s a distinction between the sexes. And that distinction is culturally advertised by style, clothing style and so forth. And Paul is saying, you know, you don’t want to start picking up the style of the opposite sex. That’s what I think he’s saying. It’s unnatural to do that. Now, of course, that’s an entirely different kind of unnatural than the unnaturalness of people having sexual relations with somebody who doesn’t have the corresponding receptacle. You know, I mean, it’s very clear when God made two sexes, he could have made one. Except for a problem there. They couldn’t reproduce. God wanted a couple that would reproduce. And so he made male and female. And it’s quite obvious that the body parts of the man and the body parts of the woman that are relative to reproduction fit like a key in a lock. It’s, you know, it’s one mechanism. Two keys wouldn’t do any good and two locks wouldn’t do any good. But a key in a lock It’s a useful thing. If you want to lock your house and you need a lock, you want a lock and you want a key. Two keys will do you no good. Two locks will do you no good. God naturally made the man and the woman as having corresponding anatomy for the purpose that marriage was created for. And when you start taking individuals, two individuals who don’t have the corresponding anatomy… then it’s very clear naturally they aren’t made to have that kind of a relationship.
SPEAKER 11 :
Okay. Thank you so much, Steve, and I appreciate the good portion of the show time dedicated to answering my questions.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, it’s a good, honest question and one that we all need to give a lot of thought to because it’s been discussed a lot. Okay.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, God bless you, Steve.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, Kent. Good talking to you. All right. Bye. Bye now. Let’s talk to Eric from Las Vegas next. Hi, Eric. Welcome.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hello, Steve. God bless you, brother.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 09 :
I know we don’t have much time, so my question quickly is on the Incarnation. I’ve been looking into it, and I had always assumed that Christ had one nature, but it was contained in human flesh. But it seems the Heidenberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession, I’ve been reading, reading, reading. It seems like the weight of the church fathers says he has two natures. And I’d like your opinion on it, please.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, that was actually the subject of the Nestorian conflict. And Nestorius was branded a heretic because of his views on that particular subject. And I have to tell you, I don’t remember which side he took. I think he took the view And someone who remembers more accurately than me could correct me on this. But I think he took the view that Christ had one nature that was human and divine. And the people who branded him as a heretic took the other view that Christ had two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. I could have that turned around. And the reason that I’m not more expert on that, and I have studied it. I’ve studied it. I’ve even taught on it in the past. I just don’t remember the details because it seems so totally unimportant. It’s not even a subject addressed in the Bible. So it would hardly matter to me what any council said about it. And to brand Nestorius as a heretic because he disagreed with somebody else on that point is, to my mind, just an evidence of the absurdity to which the church councils can stoop. The Bible never even addresses that question. And so whatever the answer is, is philosophical. And obviously the Bible doesn’t command us to take one philosophical view over another. Jesus is both man and God. Now, whether those two aspects of him are blended into one complex nature or whether they’re two separate natures, well, who knows? I guess some people think they do, but the Bible doesn’t give us any way of knowing. So without the Bible saying about it, how am I supposed to know? And why should I believe any council with anything they say? So I’m not, I wouldn’t even say whether, because I don’t know if I’m on Nestorius’ side or on the Catholic Church side, but I can’t imagine why it would matter.
SPEAKER 09 :
Now, would one viewpoint or another color the way that one would interpret other passages of Scripture?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, maybe, or other theological questions that are equally unimportant. You know, I mean… To me, what I see in church history, from my studies of it, is that the church became more and more obsessed with arcane, esoteric questions that were so far from the concern of any writer of Scripture that they almost ceased to be Christian concerns. In fact, they are not, to my mind, Christian concerns, except that some Christians get concerned about them. But they’re not legitimate concerns, you know? You know, if that was like an important thing, it seems like either Jesus or Paul or Peter or James or John would say something about it. But as near as I can tell, they never did. They never addressed that. So it’s like, why did all, you know, there’s so many things in Scripture that we are not conforming to in our behavior, which is what God cares about most, of course, you know, if we’re being holy or not. I think that instead of being obsessed with arcane philosophical niceties, I think the church would have been a much healthier church if we had focused on being more holy and more righteous, more just, more loving, more of the things that Jesus said are important, the weightier matters of the law. But the church got into philosophical speculations and eventually became excommunicators of people who had different philosophical speculations. And it’s just absurd. I mean, church history is, to my mind, shameful in those episodes.
SPEAKER 09 :
Fair enough. But thank you so much. The reason why I called was because I had always assumed there was one. And then when I started looking into it, it seemed like there was so much on two and I couldn’t find anyone that was on the one side.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 09 :
I appreciate it, Keith. Thank you so much for your time.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, Jesus had both human nature and divine nature. He was man and God. But whether those were blended into one nature or whether they were two parts is really hard to say.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thank you so much, and I look forward to seeing you again in Henderson.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, Eric. God bless you. Bye now.
SPEAKER 09 :
Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thanks.
SPEAKER 08 :
We’re going to come back, and we’re going to have another half hour, but some of our stations only carry the first half hour of our programs. If you want to hear the second half hour, we’ll be coming to that in a few seconds. And you can hear that on our website if your station doesn’t carry the second half hour. Most of the stations were on due. And so chances are you’re going to hear us on the radio the next half hour. If you’re not, you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com and listen to it there. You can also donate to the ministry at our website. We are listener supported and we pay for the time on the radio. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, You can go to the website, thenarrowpath.com, and it is possible if you wish to donate there. And those of you who are staying with us here on the radio, please stay tuned for 30 seconds. We’ll be right back to take more calls.
SPEAKER 07 :
You are listening to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. The Narrow Path is listener-supported radio. After the show, we invite you to visit thenarrowpath.com to learn more. There are topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and the radio archives of all our shows. Come on over to thenarrowpath.com. Learn, study, enjoy. We thank you for your support, and we thank you for listening each day to The Narrow Path. We now return you to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.
SPEAKER 02 :
This is the best of the Narrow Path Radio broadcast. The following is pre-recorded.
SPEAKER 01 :
Welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Program, hosted by Steve Gray. Steve is not in the studio today, so calls from listeners will not be able to be taken. In the place of the usual format, we’ve put together some of the best calls from past programs. They cover a variety of topics important to anyone interested in the Bible and Christianity. In addition to the radio program, The Narrow Path has a website you can go to, www.thenarrowpath.com, where you can find hundreds of resources that can all be downloaded for free. And now, please enjoy this special collection of calls from Steve Gray and The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Our next caller is Stephen from Eugene, Oregon. Stephen, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 12 :
Thank you for taking my call, Steve. I wanted to ask you a question about… Daniel chapter 9, the 70 weeks, and the statement about the prince who is to come, the people of the prince who is to come. I was reading that recently, and I noticed that, I guess I’d never noticed it before, but it uses the term for Jesus, Messiah, and prince, and then it repeats the term Messiah, and then there’s this word prince again. And I’ve never heard you or anybody else consider the possibility that the prince of the people who do the destruction of Jerusalem is Jesus. And I’m thinking in terms of passages in Jeremiah where it talks about Nebuchadnezzar being God’s servant and Cyrus being his servant and his shepherd and how he uses Assyria like they’re my axe head or my axe. And just… Yeah, and then the statements in all of the discourse about Jesus, you know, coming and, you know, he’s the one bringing this judgment. And it seems to me it would really simplify the whole understanding of that passage of those two words, the Messiah and the Prince, or the Commander, is how I understand it can also be translated, and then the Messiah or the Anointed One and the Commander of the people who’s to come. you know, destroy the temple. And it just really simplifies that understanding in terms of that. So anyway, I just wanted to hear what you had to say about that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, well, you’re right. You don’t hear that view very often, though I have heard it. In fact, people have called with it before. Not very often. It’s not very common to hear it. There are two major views, and this would be a third view, as to who is the prince who is to come, who destroys the city and the sanctuary in Daniel chapter 9 and verse 26. the dispensational view that’s the most popular today is that it’s talking about some future Antichrist. Right. But there’s no reason to really associate with a future Antichrist because he’s talking about the death of Jesus and then the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in 70 A.D., and he said the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Now, you’ve got a good point in that the destruction of Jerusalem is stated in other passages of the Scripture to be an act of God, an act of God’s judgment. In fact, in… Matthew 22, I think it’s in verse 7, there’s a very close verbal parallel where God is the king who invited the Jews to come to the wedding of his son, and they said no. And it says the king was angry, and he sent his armies and destroyed them and burned up their city, which is, of course, 70 AD. Now, to see God as the one who comes and destroys Jerusalem with his armies certainly is not too far a verbal difference. From what we have here, the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. So it’s not impossible that Jesus could be the prince, especially as you said, he’s called the prince. Earlier in verse 25, he’s called the Messiah, the prince. And so that is the basis for some who have called me previously about this, saying that that would be Jesus. And I would not rule that out entirely. A more common view, of course, is that the prince who is to come is the Romans. the people of the prince who is to come. Now, I will say that I think all things being equal, the Roman general or the Roman prince seems more likely to be the one identified, not because Jesus couldn’t be the prince, but because it’s not the prince who destroys the city in the sanctuary. It’s the people of the prince. And the Roman armies, only by a strange extension of logic, could be called the people. Now, of course, they could be the people that he is using. They could be the armies that he is exploiting. And that is true. And no doubt that’s what’s meant in Matthew 22 when it says the king, who is God, sent his armies, maybe the Roman armies, and burned up their city. So it is not without precedent that the armies of the Romans could be called God’s armies or Jesus’ armies that he’s using. But in general, we would not think of the Romans, who were certainly the armies that burned up the city, as being Christ’s people. And especially when Daniel is told that this prophecy has to do with the fate of Daniel’s people, which would be the Jews, seems to be a racial designation there. He said in verse 24, 70 weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city. And it seems like he’s saying your people are the Jews and therefore the people of this other prince who would come would be the Romans. And the prince would, because he’s associated with them, would most likely be the Roman prince. But I would not rule out the possibility that you’re suggesting because by some extension, the Roman armies could be seen and are at least in one place described as God’s armies. So you’ve got a point.
SPEAKER 12 :
The thing you just mentioned about what the Lord said to Daniel, I mean, the first thing that comes to my mind is that that’s sort of interesting that he’s not calling them my people, he’s calling them your people. And, you know, when Jesus said, you know, your house is left to your desolate, you know, it’s like he’s making a statement of separation there, you know, in that parable or in that statement to the leadership of Israel. Yeah. Excuse me, I hadn’t heard anybody else say that, so I’m glad to hear that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, you make a viable point. Thank you. All right, Stephen, thanks for your call. All right, our next caller is Ward from Eugene, Oregon, as our previous caller from Eugene, Oregon. Hi, Ward.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you. I have two verses that seem to be kind of opposite. I’m sure they’re not. I’d like your comment on it. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay. Strive or agonize to enter into the straight gate. And the other one is, take my yoke upon you, for it is easy and light. They sound opposites.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, entering the straight gate, I think, is entering into the kingdom of God, which we do when we’re born again. Okay? Okay. I believe the narrow gate is not the gate to heaven. I believe the narrow gate is the gate that enters into God’s kingdom, which we do when we’re born again. And, of course, Paul said that we as Christians have been translated out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of his own dear son in Colossians 1.13. So we’ve already gone through that gate if we are Christians. Now, it’s difficult for people to make the commitment if they make it properly. I mean, of course, we make it very easy for people. We just say, say a prayer, accept Jesus in your heart, and you’ve got the ticket to heaven. But that’s not what the Bible says. The Bible doesn’t teach that at all. The Bible teaches you how to become a disciple. Jesus said, unless you forsake all that you have, you can’t be my disciple. He said, unless you take up your cross daily and follow me, you can’t be my disciple. He said, unless you hate your father, mother, wife, and children, and your own life also, you can’t be my disciple. He said all those things in Luke 14. And, you know, it’s very clear. that making a decision to be a disciple on God’s terms, and, of course, those are the only terms that would save anyone. You can’t do it on your own terms. It has to be God’s terms. It’s not the easiest thing to make a decision like that. For a selfish person, it would be impossible. A selfish person could not do that. They’d have to humble themselves and recognize themselves as condemned sinners, take up their cross like a condemned criminal who’s basically accepted his fate and has given up all his rights. And follow Jesus. Now, that’s a hard decision to make. And Jesus strived to enter into that group. But he said, take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Now, taking the yoke of Christ upon you is what you do when you become a disciple. Taking a master’s yoke was something that a disciple would take on his mentor’s yoke. And that would mean he would be steered like an animal is steered who’s wearing a yoke and pulling a cart. The rabbi who had a disciple, the disciple had taken on his rabbi’s yoke and his life was being guided and steered by that rabbi. And Jesus said, well, you take my yoke on you. Let me be the rabbi. Let me be the leader that you follow and I’ll direct your life. And that’s the decision, taking his yoke upon you, is the decision to be a disciple. And as I said, it’s difficult to make that decision, especially difficult for someone who wants to retain their own rights and their own prestige. But once somebody has made that decision, once somebody has taken his yoke upon them, they will be amazed how like the yoke feels. Because when you give up your own agendas and your own dreams, and you say, well, not my will, but yours be done, suddenly the burden… has become very light because you don’t have to strive for anything. You know that God is just going to bring about his will in your life, and you’re going to follow him, and you’re going to obey him as he gives you the grace to do it. It’s not really that hard. Somebody on the outside who’s not a Christian, looking at the Christian life would say, boy, that’d be a hard life to live. You can’t go out and get drunk on the weekends anymore. You’ve got to be faithful to your wife. You can’t cheat. You’ve got to be good. You’ve got to worship God. Anyone who’s not a worshiper of God and not a lover of God would find that extremely difficult. But becoming a disciple happens when you repent of loving yourself and decide to be a lover of God. And once you decide to be a lover of God, God puts his spirit in you. And the love of God is shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Spirit, Paul said in Romans 5. And that being so, you find that the burden is light. If you’re serving somebody because he’s your employer and it’s hard work and you’re just doing it for a paycheck just because you have to and you’re afraid of being fired, well, then a hard job is going to be nothing better than a hard job and a way to make a living. But if you’re serving somebody you love, let’s say you’re doing a hard job to serve your children or your parents or your wife, somebody that you really love, It’s a joy to do it. The work can be equally hard. But when you’re doing it out of love, it makes it an entirely different experience. Because when you love somebody, it gives you no greater pleasure to do anything but to please them and to serve them. And those who find the Christian life hard, I believe, are those who have not yet learned to love. That’s what it says in 1 John. Whoever fears, that is, whoever is serving God out of fear, has not yet learned to love. Because perfect love casts out fear. when we learn to love God, we aren’t serving out of fear, we’re serving out of love, and service is a joy. It’s a pleasure. It can be hard. It may even involve persecution, imprisonment, for many in history, and even at this present time, torture and martyrdom. And yet, if you love God in the way that Christians used to love God, or are supposed to love God, and that true Christians, I think, do, then you find that that what other people would find an unbearable burden is actually very light because love makes the load light. And that’s, I think, what he’s referring to there.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, perfect. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, Ward, thank you for your call. God bless you. All right, we’re going to talk next to Don from San Diego, California. Don, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 13 :
Hi, Steve. First time I ever called in. I’d like your view on a certain thing. Let’s see if I can keep it nice and tight. It’s the view of the gift of speaking in tongues and prayer language. And so I attend more of a generic sort of a Calvary Chapel model, but I have friends that belong to a Pentecostal church. And so when I go sit with them occasionally… They have a more demonstrative sort of process in their prayer. They wave their hands more. They shout and scream. The preacher really screams and yells at them through the whole service. Okay. But they also do this thing of speaking in tongues a lot. And so the audience seems to do it a lot. And as I read, is it 1 Corinthians 14? There’s not any interpretation going on. It just seems to be annoying. Okay, so the thing where I really get troubled is, and the pastor does this, they go, well, this is prayer language. And the pastor does it up there, and they just sort of start to speak gibberish. When I use the term, they like to go into a trance, they got offended. I’m not sure where to place all this. Am I just being too sensitive to it? I don’t.
SPEAKER 08 :
There’s no basis to differentiate between speaking in tongues on the one hand and a prayer language, so to call it. The Bible doesn’t use the term a prayer language, but one could refer to speaking in tongues as a prayer language, because Paul says, when I pray in the Spirit, my understanding is unfruitful. My spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. Yeah, he’s actually, of course, saying when he speaks in tongues, and he calls that being praying in the Spirit. So if he’s speaking in tongues, he is praying. In another language, and if you wish to call that a prayer language, as Charismatic and Pentecostal people do, I would not find anything to object to in the phrase, because after all, although the Bible doesn’t use that phrase, I think it’s reasonably justified to use it. But there’s no distinction.
SPEAKER 13 :
Three or more are doing it, and they create a big racket, and there’s nobody to interpret it. It confuses me, like it describes in the Scriptures.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I think the same would be true if everybody’s praying out loud in English at the same time. In other words, Paul said that people should speak one at a time in the church, and he wanted to be orderly. And if what they’re speaking is speaking in tongues, they better have an interpretation, because if you don’t have an interpretation… That never happens.
SPEAKER 13 :
At least I don’t see it.
SPEAKER 08 :
No, in many Pentecostal churches, they certainly don’t wait for an interpretation, and they also don’t do it one at a time.
SPEAKER 13 :
I don’t think that’s the intent of it.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, the point here, the point is they are, I believe, in violation of both the spirit and the letter of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14. Okay. Now, remember, Paul said the same thing about people prophesying, and presumably they’re prophesying in a known language. He said, let them do it one at a time, two or three times. One at a time. Same thing with people who speak in tongues. Two or three. One at a time and let one interpret. So Paul is not ambiguous about what he wants. He wants people to be conducting themselves in an orderly way. And if everybody’s talking, even in English at the same time, it’s not orderly. It’s like watching, you know, Fox News or something, you know, a talk show where everyone’s talking over it.
SPEAKER 13 :
Like I’m doing to you now.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, there may be a delay on our phone so you don’t realize you’re doing it probably. But in any case, the point is that Pentecostal churches have become, what should we say, it’s their trademark of their franchise.
SPEAKER 13 :
The emotion and the frenzy sort of experience.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, the Pentecostal revival that began at Azusa Street in the early 1900s was characterized by speaking in tongues, and the denominations that grew out of that, the Four Square and the Assemblies of God and the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee, and other Pentecostal denominations, it became the trademark of their brand. And just like any denomination that has a trademark of their brand, they tend to emphasize it so that their brand stands out. And it’s a shame because certainly by placing an emphasis on speaking in tongues, any group that does so is majoring on minors to a very extreme extent. Because speaking in tongues, Paul doesn’t indicate that speaking in tongues in the church… is particularly necessary. He makes a concession. If you want to speak in tongues, then two or three people can do it if there’s an interpretation. And you’ve got to wait for the interpretation. You’ve got to do it one at a time. So Paul’s not against speaking in tongues in church, but he’s against disorderly conduct. And in my opinion, what I have seen in some Pentecostal churches, perhaps most, has seemed, in terms of Paul’s teaching, to be disorderly.
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, that’s my impression. That’s why I was concerned about it. And so my issue is should I – I felt uncomfortable after a while even being there. So I don’t know if it’s one of those things that – I don’t think it separates them from the love of God. I think it’s just like sometimes saying the Hail Mary, it’s a bit of a waste of time. I don’t know if that’s a deal killer. I just know that I don’t like to be around it that much now that I see it more often.
SPEAKER 08 :
I want to mention, you said you go to a Calvary Chapel, which is much more moderate. It may be interesting to know that I speak in tongues, and I learned about speaking in tongues for the first time by going to Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa in 1970. There was not a Calvary Chapel denomination then. There was just one Calvary Chapel with Chuck Smith as a pastor. And I first spoke in tongues by someone at Calvary Chapel, one of the ministers laying hands on me there. I’d never heard of it before because I’d been in the Baptist church before. But Chuck Smith had a Pentecostal background. And he did not like the disorderly conduct that had, he was raised four square. And he felt that there was a lot of disorderly conduct in the Pentecostal movement. He did believe in the gifts of the Spirit, as I do. But he believed that they should be in their proper place and in an orderly thing. Of course, he was guided by what Paul said. And that’s the background I had with becoming familiar with the charismatic gifts in the Jesus movement. In 1970, in a church where it was very orderly, if somebody was disorderly at the church, Pastor Romaine would come and haul them out. I mean, he was like the bouncer. But anyway, so Chuck Smith had a Pentecostal background, but he had the same concerns you do. And therefore, when he started the Calvary Chapel church and movement, he wanted to restrict those gifts in the same way that Paul did. And that’s my background, and so I have the same sensitivities about it.
SPEAKER 13 :
Okay, I’m still not settled whether to visit them. I can slip off, but they think I’m being like in a straitjacket when I don’t go forward and jump up and down and wave my hands. I just don’t feel called to do that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, no one should pressure you to worship God or do anything that you don’t think is right for you.
SPEAKER 13 :
I’m sure they mean well.
SPEAKER 08 :
Oh, I’m sure they do, but I’ll tell you this. It also depends on which Pentecostal group you go to. Some of them are more orderly than others. I mean, most Pentecostal churches have a lot of people speaking in tongues at the same time, but some of them do it without so much craziness. I mean, sometimes it’s just not… Sometimes it sounds kind of pretty, but there are some Pentecostal groups that they’re just wild. And in going to those, you almost feel like you’re in a madhouse. You almost feel like there’s demons dominating there, and it’s really… It’s really something I wouldn’t go to again.
SPEAKER 13 :
That’s why the caution. I think that’s why Paul cautions against disorder.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, listen, I’m almost out of time. I’ve got a lot more calls than I can take here.
SPEAKER 13 :
I appreciate that. Thank you for taking the time on me.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, Don. Thanks for your call. Dionne from the state of Georgia is our next caller. Dionne, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Greg. I just want to say thank God for you and your ministry. You have been a blessing to me in so many different ways. Thank you. I spoke to you a while ago. but I’m not going to do that. Yes, I have some struggling understanding of Ezekiel 28. You know, I’ve been taught so many different ways through different preachers and, you know, in terms of understanding Satan and his origin. And I was studying Isaiah 14, and I’m getting to understand that Isaiah 14, that was taught to us that I kind of, that Isaiah 14 talks about Satan, when Isaiah was prophesying about the Babylonians, you know, how they were suppressed, and the leader or the king in Babylon, you know, depicting him as, you know, this fallen king. And, of course, typically the teaching that I’ve gotten, that was Satan. But when I started to think and start to study for myself, I realized that that’s not Satan. It’s speaking of that man of sin, which was the king of Babylon and the Assyrians. So I’m trying to understand. And then when I move over to Ezekiel 28, I’m trying to understand the prince of Tyre. And then, of course, it moves in now to the fallen king. Charity. I mean, that’s what I would say, but I don’t understand. I can’t reconcile it, you know, and I just need a little more clarification.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, well, you’re right. Isaiah 14, 12 through 15 or so, or 16, and Ezekiel 28, 12 and following are the two key passages in the Old Testament that are usually cited to draw information about the origins of Satan and And many have understood these passages to say that Satan was an angel who rebelled against God and fell. But now you’ve been reading the passages yourself, and you’re finding questions about that interpretation. And there’s reason to, because neither of those passages mention Satan. Isaiah 14 specifically says it’s addressed to the king of Babylon, and everything that is said in it would be applicable to the king of Babylon. And likewise, Ezekiel 28 is addressed to the king of Tyre, or Tyre, And everything in it could be applied to him. However, we have to remember that these prophets wrote in poetic language. And sometimes because poetic language isn’t literal, people have mistaken it. For example, the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 is said that he was the anointed cherub who covers. Perfect in beauty and perfect in wisdom until iniquity is found in him. And that he was in the garden of God. Now, of course, the king of Tyre wasn’t in the Garden of Eden, and he was not a cherub. But to take that literally is to go beyond Ezekiel’s meaning. Because Ezekiel later, three chapters later, speaks about the Assyrian king as being a tree in the Garden of God. These are poetic images. The king of Assyria was not a tree in the Garden of God or anywhere else. And the king of Tyre was not a cherub in the Garden of God. If we’re talking about a literal cherub in the literal Garden of Eden, then we’re not talking about Satan because Satan was a serpent in the Garden of Eden. The story of the Garden of Eden, there was a serpent, but there was also a cherub. But the cherub wasn’t the serpent. The serpent was the devil. The cherub was placed by God with a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life. And as far as we know, the cherub was a servant of God and was not associated with Satan. So Ezekiel, by saying that the king of Tyre was the cherub in the garden of God, he’s being as symbolic there as when he says in chapter 31 that the Assyrian king was a tree in the garden of God. This is simply the poetic language of the prophet, and it doesn’t necessarily point beyond the earthly king of Tyre. But frankly, most modern Christians, English-speaking Christians, are not very familiar with the prophets. They certainly are not familiar with the poetic language of the prophet’s And therefore, these passages are often used to say that they’re talking about Satan. Now, of course, Isaiah 14 does mention in the King James Version, in verse 12, Lucifer. But Lucifer isn’t a proper name. It just means a light bearer or a morning star. And most of the modern translations render it that way. It’s not a person’s name. It’s simply a term that’s been used of the king of Babylon according to the context of the whole chapter. So I agree with you. You’re not going to find that many people who do agree with you, but I do agree with you about this. I appreciate your call. We’re out of time for the day’s show, though. You’ve been listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. We are on every weekday taking your phone calls. We’ve been doing this for almost 20 years daily. And we are listener-supported. If you’d like to help us pay the radio bills… That’s how we stay on the air. You can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Again, that’s The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can donate at our website, thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let’s talk again tomorrow.
