Join us on The Narrow Path as we delve into the role of women within the church, examining biblical perspectives on servitude and leadership. The discussion addresses the historical context of communion and the evolving structure of church leadership, including elders and deacons. We also explore the controversy over the dating of the Book of Revelation, weighing evidence of early and late compositions. Closing with an intriguing glimpse into the mystical teachings of Madame Guyon, this episode provides a rich tapestry of Christian theological thought.
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. And if you have any questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, this is an opportunity you can call in. We will talk to you over the air about those questions. If you see things differently from the viewpoint of the host and want to balance comment, we’ll be glad to hear from you. The number to call in any case is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Our first caller today is Tom calling from Gainesville, Florida. So, Tom, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thank you. Is it possible that you might discover something in the Bible written by a person that is not an apostle that is maybe not totally true?
SPEAKER 01 :
What do you have in mind?
SPEAKER 04 :
I don’t have anything in particular in mind.
SPEAKER 01 :
I see. Okay. Well, I don’t think I’m going to find anything in the Bible that isn’t true simply because I’ve found everything that’s in the Bible. I’ve taught through it verse by verse about 20 times, and I haven’t discovered anything that’s not true. Now, I have discovered things that are not stated literally. And, you know, for example, Jude quotes Enoch as if Enoch really wrote the book of Enoch. And I think he and his audience all knew, as we do, that Enoch didn’t write it. So, you know, if it sounds like he’s saying that Enoch really wrote it, and kind of the way he wrote it sounds like he says that, but he and his readers knew that that was not true. It was, you know, he was not really affirming that to be so. So there would be things that are not stated in a literally true way But that’s the point of studying the Bible, to recognize whether something is literally or figuratively, parabolically, symbolically true or some other way. But I don’t believe there’s anything in the Bible that I would say is untrustworthy. Now, you mentioned anything in the Bible not written by an apostle. You’re referring, of course, to the New Testament, which is mostly written by apostolic authority. But some of the authors were not apostles, but they were associated with the apostles so closely that their writings were considered to be apostolic in authority. Because, for example, Mark wrote Peter’s gospel, no doubt under Peter’s supervision. And Luke wrote under Paul’s supervision, in all likelihood, it seems. It appears that he wrote both Luke and Acts while Paul was still alive. And, you know, Acts was completed when Paul had spent two years in prison in Rome, and he lived beyond that. So Luke was with him to the end. So it seems that, you know, books written by non-apostles, but men who were so closely associated with apostles, that the assumption is they had the approval of the apostles in what they wrote. They had, no doubt, supervision from the apostles or got their doctrines from the apostles, whatever. I mean, those things would be apostolic, even if they’re not written down by an actual apostle. At least that’s the way the word apostolic would be probably extended to them in considerate books for canonicity. Now, I don’t believe I’ll find anything in the Bible that I regard to be untrue, though, like I said, many things in the Bible are not literal. because much of it is written in poetry. Some of it is apocalyptic imagery. Some of them are parables and things like that. So, in the study of the Bible, you’re studying not just a book, you’re studying 66 different books written in different genres. So, really, to understand even what’s being affirmed, in some cases, you really need to have some understanding of ancient literature. Not always. Some of it is just plain narrative that’s easy to understand, but But there are definitely conventions of interpretation that apply to different kinds of writing from that period. And those who study the Bible have to learn those things so they’ll be able to say what the Bible is affirming and what’s not whenever that’s questionable. But, no, I don’t think – I mean, like I said, I’ve taught through the Bible verse by verse dozens of times. And, you know, that’s what I’ve done all my life for the past 54 years. And so I don’t think there’s going to be anything turn up there that I’m going to say, oh, that’s a problem. I don’t think that’s true. All right? Okay. Thank you. Okay, Tom. Thanks for your call. God bless you. All right. Our next caller is Kirsten from Escondido, California. Hi, Kirsten.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Steve. My question today is about the story of the rich young ruler. And I listened to your verse-by-verse teaching on it and some other commentaries, and the thinking seems to be that it’s about Jesus teaching about coveting, but I’m not sure I see it that way because the guy would, well, I don’t know why he would be coveting because he’s rich. So then I was wondering if there was more to it or if you had other teaching on it somewhere that I could find because I had some other ideas about it maybe?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, I don’t think he was coveting, but I think he was covetous. Covetous means greedy. Now, a covetous person may also covet what other people have. Essentially, the law against coveting is, you know, you should not covet your neighbor’s house or your neighbor’s land or your neighbor’s servant, your neighbor’s donkey, or whatever. You’re not supposed to covet what belongs to somebody else. Now, in my verse-by-verse teaching, which is many years old, I think someone told me once something that I didn’t realize to be true, and I may have suggested that he was guilty of breaking the Tenth Commandment, you should not covet. I haven’t listened to those for probably over a decade, so I don’t remember. There are people who say that, and I may have said that at one time. I’m disinclined to say it now. So if I did say that in that lecture, I’d be more inclined to just say not that he’s violating the law about coveting, but that he is definitely exhibiting covetousness, which is basically idolatry. That’s what Paul said in Ephesians 5.5. Paul said that covetousness is idolatry. And he said the same thing in Colossians 3, I think verse 5 there. So twice Paul said that covetousness, which is, of course, greediness, is idolatry. So that would be more of a violation of the first commandment rather than the tenth.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Because I was just wondering, one of my friends and I were talking about it. And, I mean, first of all, he didn’t really answer the question at first. He just started talking about good and then perfect. And then, well, my friend pointed out that the thing that Jesus told him to do wasn’t even part of the law. Wouldn’t that be true?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, unless he was covetous, in which case that’s a violation of the law. Excuse my voice. I’ve got something in my throat suddenly. You know, he’d have another God before God. That’s a violation of the first commandment.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes. Oh, I see, I see. Okay, because I was just wondering if… Now, I know this is taboo to suggest that good works have anything to do with our salvation, and I’m not saying that they have anything to do with entering the kingdom of God. I know that’s all Jesus. He’s the way, the door to enter the kingdom. But I just wondered if good works have something to do with maybe staying in and maybe… Jesus, because what he asked them to do sounded a lot like a good work to me, you know, go and sell things and give to the poor. And I just wondered if it possibly could be Jesus maybe teaching on how good works go hand in hand with our faith. And they seem to be inextricably linked to me when I read the Bible.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, they are. They are. They’re inseparable. So although in the controversy that arose recently, in the Reformation between Roman Catholicism and Luther and the Reformers, the big controversy or one of the big controversies was, are we saved by works or by faith alone? And, you know, it’s really kind of a verbal kind of difference because the faith that saves us, will never be without works. And works or virtues are those that are done out of faith. So faith and works are joined at the hip. The problem in the Reformation was that Catholics had a whole bunch of works, a lot of traditional things and requirements and say this many Hail Marys and this many Our Fathers and light this many candles and and pay this much to get out of purgatory, you know, these kinds of things, you know, that Luther was realizing, no, it’s just faith in Christ, you know. But I don’t know to what degree Luther processed this because, of course, a man doesn’t in his lifetime probably have time to process everything. But, you know, he was emphasizing we’re justified by faith, not by works of, you know, religious works. But The Bible does indicate that if you have the kind of faith that saves you, you will have good works. Because what you believe, what you have faith in, is the lordship of Jesus. I mean, exactly the point of believing is to believe that Jesus is Lord. As Paul said in Romans 10.9, he said, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you’ll be saved. So you’re saved when you confess sincerely and believe that Jesus is risen from the dead and that he’s the Lord, he’s the king, he’s the one in charge. And remember, Jesus said, why do you call me Lord, Lord, and you don’t do the things that I say, which he thought to be entirely impossible. You know, I can’t be your Lord if you’re not doing what I say. When you come to Christ, if you believe he’s the Lord… Unless you rebel against that knowledge, you submit to that knowledge. There’s only two ways you can respond to the information. If God says, hey, Jesus is the king, he’s the Lord, he’s the one in charge, I give him all authority over heaven and earth, that means he’s over you and he has all authority in your life. Okay, so God says that. Once I know that, there’s two ways I can go and no third way. One way I can say, well, I don’t care if he’s Lord, I’m not going to follow him. I’m just going to rebel. The other way is to say, oh, wow, if that’s true, then I’m going to submit to him. He’s my Lord. You can’t have a third option with a king. A Lord is a king. So, you know, if you know that somebody’s your king, you either obey him or you rebel against him. Now, salvation is not for the rebels. It’s for the submissive. It’s for those who believe that Jesus is the Lord. That belief saves you, but it also sets you on a course of life of obedience. And your works, of course, are those obedience. They’re not religious works. They’re not ritualistic works. They’re not lighting candles and saying Hail Marys. They are works of love. That’s what Paul said himself in Galatians 5-6. He said in Christ Jesus, circumcision doesn’t count for anything and uncircumcision doesn’t count for anything, which is a way of saying it doesn’t matter if you’re a Jew or a Gentile. He said what matters is faith that works through love. Okay, so what saves a person is not being a Jew or Gentile. What saves a person is having a faith that works through love. Now, James said faith that doesn’t have works is dead. So Paul and James were exactly on the same page about this. They both believed you have to have faith, but they both believed that the faith you have to have is one that produces works. And if you have a faith that doesn’t work, then it’s not the faith we’re talking about here, you know. So, yeah, good works cannot be separated from the Christian’s salvation. It’s the surrender. It’s the faith to Christ as King and Lord that saves you. But what it saves you to is a life of submission. And, you know, if you don’t live a life of submission… then how can you convince God that you believe Jesus is the Lord? That’s why Jesus said, why do you call me Lord, Lord, and you don’t do the things I say? He also said, not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of God, but those who do the will of my Father in heaven. So it’s not just saying Lord. Yeah, you’ve got to recognize him as Lord. But when you recognize him as Lord, if you’re not insincere, it means you see yourself as subject to him and you live your life in obedience to him. That’s the conversion experience. You’ve stopped living for yourself and now you have a total new person in charge of your life, Jesus. So yeah, good works are not going to be ever absent from a genuine Christian life.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right. Okay. Thank you. I love the way you said that you can either rebel or submit to the knowledge. There’s no third way. Yeah, that’s
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, I mean, when you’ve got a king, I mean, if we were trying to choose political parties, there might be any number of those we can have allegiance to. But we’re talking about a king here, not political parties. You know, king demands all your allegiance. You either give it to him or you’re a rebel.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, well, I just more and more realizing it, I’ve heard it said, it’s not just as simple as walking down the sawdust trail. You know, because my uncle once said, well, I think that guy is saved by the skin of his teeth. And I’ve always thought, well, what does that really mean? I mean, can you be saved by the skin of your teeth, like not do anything to show that you really were saved? I don’t really know. So this was helpful. Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
You know, I’m not going to decide for God who is saved and who’s not saved, because there are people who truly believe and truly are in their hearts wanting to submit to Christ. but have greater struggles in some areas of obedience than other people have. You know, somebody who’s never been a drug addict, somebody who’s never been an alcoholic, somebody who’s never been living a loose life, but has always lived kind of a life that resembles a Christian life, but then they become a Christian, probably they’re not going to have much difficulty being obedient to Christ. So they might have other difficulties. They might have difficulty being loving or humble or some other things like that that are equally important. But But there are people who, when they’re converted, they come out of a very hard background with habits deeply ingrained that they know they have to stop, and they’re determined to stop, but they wrestle with them more than the average person might. So, you know, God knows where their heart is, really. The real issue is not how many good works you do, but how determined you are that you’re going to live your life for Christ, which will involve good works. Right. But you may have that determination and fall short of it.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah. So we don’t know. Thank you so much for your perspective.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Great talking to you, Kirsten.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
Bye now. All right. Let’s talk to Brandon from Phoenix, Arizona. Brandon, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hey, Steve. Hope you’re doing good. My quick question is, I’m one of the servants of the church here in Arizona, and we were trying to have like a vote on whether or not if the women can serve, like serve the communion. And I kind of disagreed with it because of, you know, like Paul saying of, you know, not the women leading in the church and so on. But my question is, like, what do you think about it? And And after that, too, I wanted to know, like, the differences of the deacon and the elders’ roles, like the elders of the church and the deacons’ roles.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Yeah. Thank you for that call. Yeah. Okay. So can women serve the communion? Now, I come to this whole question with a much different position than many Christians have in that I’m not a believer in – In what should I say? Institutionalized religion. Now, I don’t think Jesus started an institutionalized religion. He appointed the apostles, of course, to continue his work of teaching the church. And there are people who God raises up to teach and to shepherd and things like that. But I don’t see them as anything other than servants of a type, because every person in the body of Christ is to be a servant. And God has given each person a different gift, which is their service assignment. Whatever your gift is, is what you’re assigned to serve the whole body with. I don’t believe in a hierarchy where like the pastors and such have some kind of special governing authority. over the church like we think of among the leaders of the Gentiles. Remember what Jesus said about the rulers of the Gentiles. They exercise authority over people, but it shall not be so among you, he said to his disciples. Among you, whoever would be chief must be the slave of all. So it’s very inverted from any corporation or pagan government or anything like that. And yet the church eventually became like a pagan government, only not pagans. It became like a corporation, and it has, you know, persons who aren’t called CEO and board of directors, but they call them pastor and board of elders or board of deacons or something like that. I mean, depending on the denomination and their bylaws and things like that. See, that’s all corporate stuff. They do all of that because that’s what you have to do to have a 501c3 corporation that which is a corporation and has to be set up like any corporation. But Jesus didn’t set up a corporation. He set up a family. He set up a kingdom. He’s the king, and he’s given everybody responsibility to serve everybody else in some capacity through whatever gifts they have. Teachers, which is what I regard myself to be, are to serve the body of Christ by teaching, not to insist that people have to agree with me. That’s not being a servant. That’s being a boss. People don’t have to agree with me. The Bible nowhere says that people have to agree with me. But if I have the gift of teaching, that’s the service I’m supposed to provide for those who desire it. If I were a shepherd, I’d provide pastoral service. But, you know, in our modern church, we see these roles as authoritarian roles. We see a flowchart kind of organization here. in corporations, which most churches are. Now, the reason I say all of that is to say, can women serve communion? In my opinion, serving communion is not something that’s necessary for a pastor or an elder to be involved with, because I believe the early church had communion at a meal table, and they may very well have had women and men serving at that table. I believe… It was not a sacrament, as it’s come to be called. I believe it was not a ritualistic thing. I think it was table fellowship, as Jesus had with his disciples. And he said, as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show forth the Lord’s death till he comes, which I believe that they ate bread and drank cup together very frequently. But I don’t think it had to be that you’d call the deacons. For example, if six couples were meeting at your house for dinner, we might take the cup and the bread and say, we do this in remembrance of Christ. But that doesn’t mean we have to call in the elders or the deacons to your house to do that. Anyone can serve. There’s no forbidding of women to serve. Now, Paul did not put women in the position of eldership. He didn’t put women in the position of pastoral leadership over men. or teachers over men even, Paul said. But those are not the only things that can be done, and there’s nothing in the Bible that says that serving elements at the table can only be done by people who hold some kind of special office. My guess is in the Roman world, where many people had household servants, a lot of these meals where they probably took the bread and wine may have been served by household servants or women. Women could be servants, too. I mean, when Jesus and his disciples stayed at Martha’s house, Martha served the food. But, you see, we’ve somehow made communion, well, we didn’t, but our predecessors did, something far different than what Jesus did, as if it’s a very ceremonial ritual thing, which, of course, Passover was. But we don’t ever read that the church communion was that ritualistic. Paul For example, it gives us one of the few biblical examples of church taking communion in 1 Corinthians 11. It’s very clear they’re all at table eating a meal together, and some of them are getting drunk, and some of them are taking too much food, and so others are going away hungry. Paul rebukes them for that. But how could it get so out of hand if it was some kind of really regulated ritualistic thing like you do, you know, in our modern churches? The communion was taken at a meal. And I don’t think it was anywhere near as ritualistic as it’s come to be thought of. Now, again, once again, nobody has to agree with me about that. But you’re asking me, and from my point of view, I don’t think it matters who serves food. I don’t think it matters who serves the drinks. I don’t think it matters… who serves at all because everyone is a servant and everyone can serve. So I wouldn’t see that as an issue. Now, of course, most people take communion in a ritualized church service on a Sunday morning. And, you know, for example, if you’re a Roman Catholic, then it has to be a priest because he’s the only one who can work the magic on the food and the drink to turn them into the body and blood of Jesus. And I ask the pardon of my Catholic friends for calling it magic. But, I mean, we don’t read of it happening that way in the Bible. And it would seem to be like magic if it happened. We can call it a miracle if that seems more reverent. But I don’t think the Bible refers to it as a miracle at all. But the Catholic Church has the idea that an ordained priest has to be present to turn those things into whatever he has to turn them into. I don’t believe anyone’s turning anything into anything at the communion meal. Jesus didn’t at the Last Supper. I don’t think the apostles turned it into anything at their meals. And I don’t think it takes a special person to do that. But, of course, if you’re in the Catholic tradition, a woman could not do it because a woman can’t be a priest. And likewise, Protestants have bought into an awful lot of the priestly-like roles of They don’t call their ministers priests, but they’ve kind of borrowed the Catholic idea that the priest is kind of in charge of things. And, you know, we’ve got a lot of Catholicism in our Reformation churches. But all I can say is that the Bible certainly doesn’t suggest there’s anything that happens when serving communion services. that would require somebody who has special qualifications to do it. So that’s my take. Now, I realize there’s probably 90% of the people listening are going to disagree with that. Some might even be offended. I apologize if you’re offended, but it’s my view. And if you want to find me incorrect scripturally, I’ll be glad to hear from you. Now, you had a second question. I’m going to have to take that after the break. Your question was the difference between elders and deacons. And I will talk about that when we come back from our break. We have this break coming up at the bottom of the hour. And if I get started on it, we’ll be interrupted by it. So stay with us, Brandon, and we’ll talk about that. You’re listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re on Monday through Friday. We’ve been doing this 28 years, daily, 28 years we’ve been doing this, since 1997. And we’re now on stations all over the country. I don’t represent any denomination, and I don’t suggest that my answers are absolutely authoritative. Once someone called and said, who qualified you to answer the Bible questions? I don’t know that I am qualified. I don’t think anyone is qualified to tell people what they’ve learned. And if you don’t agree, then that’s fine, too. You don’t have to. Think for yourself. Do what the Bereans did. Hear what Paul has to say, and then search the Scriptures. for yourself and decide what to believe. Anyway, that’s what we’ve been trying to orchestrate here for 28 years. We are listener supported. If you’d like to help us, you can go to our website. Everything at the website is free. It’s thenarrowpath.com. That’s thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. We have another half hour, so don’t go away.
SPEAKER 03 :
If truth did exist, would it matter to you? Whom would you consult as an authority on the subject? In a 16-lecture series entitled The Authority of Scriptures, Steve Gregg not only thoroughly presents the case for the Bible’s authority, how this truth is to be applied to a believer’s daily walk and outlook. The Authority of Scriptures can be downloaded in MP3 format without charge from our website, thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 01 :
Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour, taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we welcome you to call in. The number is 844-484-5737. That number again, 844-484-5737. We were talking before our break to Brandon in Phoenix, Arizona, who had a second question. Hi, Brandon. Hey, you asked what the difference is between elders and deacons. The early… local congregations in biblical times were overseen by people who were called overseers, who were also called elders. Now, the word overseer in the King James Version and maybe some other versions was translated as bishops. Now, bishop sounds very high church, but the Greek word is simply episkopos. Episkopos means an overseer. someone who’s a supervisor, someone who pays attention to what’s going on, okay, and keeps things orderly, I guess. These same people were called elders. That’s presbuteros is the word elder, and that’s the ordinary Greek word for an old man. Any old man was an elder, a presbuteros. And so the leaders of the church who were the overseers, who were given the oversight of the church, were also called old men, and they were probably older men in the church who were selected for that. Now, Paul called for the elders of the church in Ephesus to meet with him, and he gave them a final address in Acts chapter 20. He didn’t think he was going to see them again, so they came and assembled, and he spoke to them. We’re told in Acts 20, verse 17, from Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them, then he gave this long speech. And part of his speech was in verse 28. He said, therefore, take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. That is episcopate. To shepherd the church. Now, the word shepherd is the verb form. The Greek word poime, no, something like that. I used to know, I’m not going to search for it right now. Poimen, yes, poimen is what it is. And that’s the word for a shepherd, someone who tends sheep, but it’s also the word pastor, because the word pastor means a shepherd. Now, in other words, the elders, there were several of them in the church of Ephesus, Paul called for them, and he mentioned that God had, the Holy Spirit had made them episcopate or overseers the word that the King James usually translates bishops though it doesn’t use it doesn’t translate that way here because it wouldn’t make as much sense so the overseers or bishops or episcopate are the same people as the presbytery the elder men and they are the ones who are told to shepherd or pastor the church so the churches the local churches like the one in Ephesus were in fact pastored by a group of men called elders, and called overseers. Now, we see this confirmed not just by Paul, but from Peter himself. In 1 Peter 5, verse 1, Peter said, The elders, that’s presbytery, the elders who are among you, I exhort, I whom also a fellow elder, I’m also an old man, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ. He says to them, verse 2, shepherd, that is pastor, the flock of God, which is among you serving as overseers, episcope. So all three of these words, the word elder, the word overseer, which is, as I said, sometimes translated bishop wrongfully, and then the word pastor. We see that Peter and Paul used all three of these words to speak to the same people. Now, in Acts chapter 13, when Paul and Barnabas, or Acts 14, I think it is, when Paul and Barnabas were returning from their missionary journey, their first missionary journey, it says they appointed elders, plural, in each church. So every church individually had elders, plural. James also, in James 5, said, Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders, plural, of the church, singular. Each church had elders. It was not a senior pastor kind of deal. The pastoral ministry was, was given to overseers who were called elders. And there were numerous of them in each church. Now, I’ll just read two more passages, then we’ll talk about the deacons, which you asked about also. But twice, Paul gives instructions about the qualifications of these overseers or elders. You see, in 1 Timothy 3, verse 1, it says, This is a faithful saying. If a man desires the position of an overseer, now the King James is a bishop, but it’s episkopos, an overseer. He desires a good work, and then he gives the qualifications. Now, if you look over at Titus chapter 1, it says in verse 5 and 6, Titus 1, For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders, plural, in every city. There’s only one church in the city. So each church had elders to be appointed there. Elders, presbuteroi. But the next two verses, 6 and 7, say, If a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of dissipation or insubordination, for an overseer must be blameless. Okay, so he says, appoint elders. They must have these qualifications because an overseer has to be, has to have these qualifications. Notice he’s using the word elder and overseer. synonymously, interchangeably. And, of course, we see that’s true throughout the Scriptures. There’s never a case where the Bible singles out elders from overseers, episcope, from pastors. These are all simply a group of men in every church who provided oversight, which means they paid attention to the needs of the weak and those who tend to wander. Remember, Jesus said a good shepherd… If he has 100 in his flock and one goes astray, he leaves the 99 to themselves so he can go off and find those straying ones. So he doesn’t have to micromanage the 99 who pretty well can feed by themselves. They’re self-feeders. But he’s there to take care especially of the ones who need someone to keep them from straying. And we see this in 1 Thessalonians 5. Paul, interestingly here, in 1 Thessalonians 5, 12 through 15, Paul says, We urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you and who stand before you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their works’ sake, and be at peace among yourselves. Then he says, Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, Comfort the faint-hearted. Uphold the weak. Be patient with all. See that none renders evil for evil. Now, the first group of people he calls brethren in verses 12 and 13 are the congregation. It says, recognize those who labor among you, those who stand before you in the Lord, those who admonish you. This would be their leaders. He says, esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Not because they wear a badge or have stripes on their arms. It’s not their office. It’s their work. They are appreciated for their work, not because they hold some kind of a rank. because Jesus didn’t give such ranks. He said, whoever will be greatest among you has to be the slave of everybody. It’s the lowest rank. Now, having said that to the people about appreciating their leaders, which would be, of course, the elders, he turns to the leaders themselves and says, now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the faint-hearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all, see that none renders evil for evil. This is what the elders are supposed to prevent people from being unruly. If they’re faint-hearted, they should comfort them. If they’re weak, they should uphold them. In other words, these are the weak sheep. The elders are supposed to be focused on supporting the weak sheep. Now, in our modern churches, the majority of the sheep are probably really weak. But in biblical times, I think it was assumed, and the churches I’ve been in mostly, the people aren’t mostly weak sheep. They’re mostly actually real Christians who actually are self-feeders. They actually follow Jesus without a lot of babysitting and hand-holding. But there are always some people in the church who simply aren’t, they’re struggling all the time with their Christian walk. Well, that’s what the leaders are there for. They’re there to comfort the faint-hearted, to uphold the weak ones. That’s what the leaders are told to do. So, you know, the ones, the high-maintenance sheep, that’s what the elders should be concentrating on there. Now, what about deacons? What are they? We don’t, we’re not told much about deacons in the Bible, except in 1 Timothy 3, after the qualifications for elders are gone through, he gives qualifications for deacons, and they’re just about the same as the qualifications for elders, with the exception that the elders must be apt to teach. An elder has to be able to teach. Deacons have to have all the same characteristics of an elder, except they’re not said to have to teach, because the elders teach, and the deacons do not. Why? The word deacon comes from the Greek word diakonos. It’s simply a an English transliteration of the Greek word diakonos, deacons. And diakonos is a word for servant. They’re servants. Now, the word deacon and the word elders are not used in the first appearance of such people, it would appear, but they seem to be a first appearance in Acts chapter 6. The apostles were doing everything in the church, preaching, teaching, distributing the food. They got overburdened, so they selected seven men to do the food distribution. They didn’t have to do the teaching. but they did have to do the grunt work. They served in practical ways to serve food to the hungry and things like that. And they don’t call them deacons there because the church didn’t have anyone called deacons at that early point. But it’s almost certain that when Paul later spoke of deacons, then they were simply the ones who were doing that kind of service. So a deacon is not really a position of authority in the church. Although it is in some churches today, it wasn’t in the Bible. They were just servants. They just served. And then the elders in the church would be doing the role kind of like what the apostles did in the Church of Jerusalem. The elders did that where the apostles were not present. Now, the fact that the only two offices we know of in the early church are the elders or the bishops, the overseers, on the one hand, and deacons. is seen in Philippians chapter 1, verse 1. Philippians 1.1, Paul says, Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, as with the overseers and deacons. Grace to you and peace. So he addresses all the saints with their overseers and their deacons, their servants. And so this is apparently the only two offices the Church of Philippi had. There’s no mention of the pastor. for the simple reason that the overseers were the ones that Paul and Peter both, and Jesus, told to feed the sheep. And so deacons and elders differ from one another in that deacons do not provide actual leadership, they serve. The elders also serve, but they serve those who need leadership. You know, leadership is a service. If you’re out lost in the woods and you don’t know which way to go, and a park ranger comes along and says, here, I’ll guide you out He’s providing a valuable service. If you’ve got someone who can guide you when you need guidance, that’s a great service. And that’s what the elders are there for, to shepherd sheep, especially the lost sheep, the wandering sheep. Now, all the flock should walk together in unity, but not all the flock equally needs the services of the leader. And so, you know, when the leaders say, okay, everyone’s going to do things my way. It’s my way or the highway in this church. He’s not the servant. He’s the boss, which is what the rulers of the Gentiles do, Jesus said. He says, it shall not be that way with you. Anyway, long time on that question, but it’s a major one. A lot of scripture on it. Appreciate your call, Brandon. Let’s talk to Bob in Roseville, California. Bob, welcome. Thank you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Do you have a specific date in mind when the book of Revelation was written? And second, do you have specific dates on when each of the seven churches in Revelation came about?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, as far as the churches of Revelation, why don’t we hang up? I’ll just give this over the air because you’ve got noise on your line there. Okay. Yeah, God bless you. The churches of Revelation were all in the region called Asia Minor, which is today’s Turkey. In modern times, that area is called Turkey. That area was a province of the Roman Empire called Asia or Asia Minor. All seven churches were from there. Now, we’re told in the book of Ephesians, I think it’s in chapter 20, if I’m not mistaken, that when Paul was in Ephesus, which is one of those churches that was addressed in Revelation, it’s one of the churches of Asia, it says he spent three years there, between two and three years, and it says while he was there, all of Asia heard the Gospels. So, in other words, there was a period of two or three years when Paul was residing in Ephesus, and he was either making forays out to other towns and planting churches or sending people like Epaphroditus out to places like Colossae to start that church. Under Paul’s leadership, all these churches were planted there. So we have to assume that that was true of these churches also. that are addressed later in the book of Revelation. They were planted in the days that Paul was in Ephesus. And, you know, we don’t know the exact year of that. I’m going to suggest it was probably around, let me see, I’m calculating it from Paul’s death backward. Um, That’s probably around 56, 57 A.D., around then when Paul was in Ephesus there. Now, the other question, what exact date was Revelation written? We don’t know the exact date. In fact, it’s controversial even which decade he wrote it in. I believe the evidence is that he wrote it in the 60s, probably the late 60s. I believe there’s evidence in the book that the temple was still standing. Revelation 11, 1, and 2 indicate the temple was still standing at the time, and it was destroyed in 70 A.D. So if it was still standing at the time, I’d say that Revelation was written sometime in the 60s. Now there’s another view, and in fact it’s more common these days, but it was not always so. But some believe it was written in the reign of Domitian, more like 96 A.D. And this is a great controversy. It doesn’t have to be, but we don’t know the exact date. We wouldn’t have to. The only thing at stake here would be if it was written in 96 A.D., we have no idea what things happened shortly thereafter, which the book of Revelation said were about to take place. In the book of Revelation, the readers were told these things are about to take place. The time is at hand. There was obviously something happening very soon after the book was delivered to these churches that they were told was going to happen real soon. And if it was in 96, we can’t even guess what it would be. There’s nothing that ever happened after 96 A.D., not soon afterwards anyway, that in any way could even symbolically be described by those visions of Revelation. Now, if it was written in the 60s, that was the reign of Nero. And there’s many scholars throughout history who believe that was the time when it was written. And therefore, if it was, Nero committed suicide in 68 A.D., And therefore, it would be written prior to 68. And what happens shortly after that would be the destruction of Jerusalem. And there are many indicators in the book of Revelation that it may be predicting that event because it would have happened shortly after that. Anyway, we don’t know the exact year, so I’m not going to speculate about that. But my view is that it was written before 70 A.D. Many, many people believe it was written before. around 96 AD. That’s obviously a difference of 26 years or more in the two theories. All right, let’s talk to Kevin in River Rouge, Michigan. Kevin, welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hey, good to talk to you again, Steve. I wanted to thank you for that exposition, for that first call regarding Luther’s Reformation. I had on my bumper sticker, my old truck, Who is doing the doing? And anyway, I bought it at a flea market. I have a question on what you thought of Madame, I-N-V-U-Y-O-N, as being a mystic. I used to read Imitation of Christ when I used to ice fish when I lived out in the country out here in the Irish Hills. I love it. Yeah, I just was wondering what your take is that they threw her in. I heard this morning from a friend of mine that they ended up putting her in a mental institution and didn’t agree with her stand on the union of Christ in her life. Have you heard anything about that?
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, she was imprisoned. It may have been technically in a mental institution, but she was incarcerated. because she spoke of controversial things as far as the church of her time was concerned. In France, of course, they were Catholic. And because of the noise on your line, we’re going to put you on hold there. Usually her name is pronounced Madame Gayon, but it doesn’t really matter. She won’t be offended if you call her by some other name, I’m sure. But… She was part of what we call the quietist movement. She and Fenelon were both, they were friendly. He was her spiritual counselor. She was a very beautiful woman of high rank in society. And she was very arrogant and very proud before her conversion. And she was greatly humbled by God when she suffered from smallpox. And it disfigured her face, I guess her skin and stuff, bore the marks of having had smallpox. It marred her beauty. She had been very proud. This is her own testimony. She had been very proud of her beauty, but then she was very humbled and she drew very close to God. And she was a spiritual counselor to many. But she was part of a movement called quietism, which was largely just about resigning to the will of God. just being resigned, just resting in God and letting him worry about everything. There may be ways in which they were not entirely balanced. I mean, for me to say it was just about resting in God, that’s a great oversimplification of it, but that’s kind of what quietism refers to, just to quietly be resigned to whatever God does. And there were theological ramifications of that. I’m sure she probably crossed the Roman Catholic establishments. I don’t remember the specific reasons they gave for incarcerating her, but they may have said she was mentally ill or whatever because she was giving up her wealth and her state and her position and things like that just to be a humble servant of God. And people couldn’t understand that. Lots of people think Christians are crazy who take otherworldly goals in their lives. But, yeah, I did know about that. And Fanelon. Fanelon was a counselor of hers. But she also counseled him, too. I mean, they were both kind of leaders in a movement that you can read about if you look up quietism. As far as, you know, The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Akempis, I love that book. I’ve read it many, many times through, and I’ll certainly read it some more. It’s a very powerful book. I will say this about it. It’s got several different distinct sections. And the latter sections, at least the last one or maybe the last two, are very much about the Eucharist and things like that, and they come strictly from a Roman Catholic position, because it was written, what, in the 14th century or something like that? It was written before the Reformation, so he had very little choice but to be a Roman Catholic in his thinking. But at the same time, I disagree with some of The parts at the end, but I’ll tell you the first parts, the first two-thirds maybe of the book, I’m not sure. Very powerful and convicting, edifying stuff. That’s Thomas Akempis, The Imitation of Christ. By the way, that book, along with Pilgrim’s Progress, both of them, it is claimed, are the most read books in history, except the Bible. The Bible is the most read book in history. And among Catholics, at least, and many Protestants like myself, Thomas Akempis of The Imitation of Christ is like the second most read in the Bible. But among many Protestants, the second most read book after the Bible is Pilgrim’s Progress. In any case, Pilgrim’s Progress is very Reformed and very anti-Catholic, but very edifying. But then, you know, Thomas Akempis is very Catholic, but also very edifying. So both books are said to be the second most read book after the Bible. But I suppose it would depend on whether you’re Catholic or Protestant, which one of those you’d favor. I love both of them. I’ve read both of them many times. They’re certainly the kind of books that Christians should read multiple times.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thank you, Bud.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay. God bless you, Kevin. Is it David in Arkansas, our next caller?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, it’s David. How are you doing?
SPEAKER 01 :
Good. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, well, this might be a little bit of an unusual call. I don’t really have a question. I wanted to commend you on what you’re doing, and I know you don’t want me to do that. But I sit here and listen, and you’re feeding me, and you’re taking the Bible, God’s Word, and you’re making it make sense again, and I appreciate that. It seems like so many people are led to make it difficult. to put them in a position where you have to talk to them to get the understanding of the word. And that’s not the way God designed it, I don’t believe. Three years ago, I died. They couldn’t revive me. I was dead for three and a half days. I actually met Jesus, and the angels got to talk with Jesus and walk with him. And he told me one thing that really stuck. Everything stuck with me. But he said, tell what you know. And he sent me back. And I actually wrote a book about it, and that’s not why I’m calling. But you’re doing exactly that. You’re telling what you know. And you dissect things. You’re going to make a lot of preachers, a lot of churchgoers angry because I think you’re telling the truth. You’re telling it the way God wants it told. I know that Satan’s after you. And I want to just call and encourage you and say keep doing the hard work. You’ve got a buddy out here that really appreciates what you’re doing. And if you ever have questions about Jesus, what he looks like, what he sounds like, give me a call sometime. I’ll give you my phone number.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you email me? I’d love to. Yeah. If you go to my website, thenarrowpath.com. Yes, sir. At the bottom of the main page, there’s an email address where you can email me. I’d love to hear more about your book and your testimony.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, I thank you, and you have a wonderful day. Just stay encouraged. Don’t let the world get you down.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right, David. Great to hear from you. God bless you.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 01 :
Bye-bye. Bye now. Well, you’ve been listening to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’ve been doing this, like I said, since 1997. And we pay lots of money to radio stations. I mean, it’s just a testimony to the grace of God that we’ve been able to pay for that many years. We spend over $140,000 a month on radio stations, and we have nothing for sale, no sponsors, no commercial breaks, nothing. But God just provides. And he does it through people like you. Many of you would like to hear the program continue. And if you’d like to, you can. Write to The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. You can go to our website. There’s thousands of resources there, all for free. You can donate there if you want. It’s thenarrowpath.com.
