The dialogue takes a personal turn as Steve addresses a caller’s concern about conflicts in church practices and unity. Through insightful exchanges, the episode explores the dynamics of denominational differences and the pursuit of harmony among believers. Adding a practical touch, Steve shares strategies for resolving personal disputes within church communities, all while maintaining a strong focus on scriptural teachings. Finally, the discussion rounds out with a focus on the concept of spiritual rebirth, providing clarity on what it means to be ‘born again’.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
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. This is our last broadcast day of the week and we have another hour ahead for you to call in if you wish with any questions you might want to raise on the air about the Bible or the Christian faith. We’ll try to answer them for you if we can. You can also call if you disagree with the host. I want to say why. I’d be glad to hear from you. The number to call is 844-484-5737. Now, we have a couple of lines open. If you want to call right now, it’s a good time. 844-484-5737. I’m broadcasting from Michigan. And, you know, all week long I’ve been saying this to me in the Grand Rapids area. I used to live in Oregon, so Grand Rapids comes to mind. In Grand Rapids area. And I didn’t realize it’s really about a half hour from then. You know, it’s like I live about a half hour from, you know, Escondido. And if someone said the meeting’s in Escondido and it was really in Temecula, that might disappoint some people. Anyway, we’re up in a little town called Greenville, Michigan, speaking tonight and tomorrow. And if you’re interested in joining us, you can go to our website and see how to join us, where it’s going to be. And then, let’s see, Sunday, I’m speaking twice in another city in Michigan, Imlay City, a place I’ve never been before, but I’m looking forward to it. Two different meetings, one in the morning, one at night in different venues. That’s Sunday. And then I’ve got more things going on for the rest of the week and beyond, beyond next weekend even. So if you’re in the Michigan area or I’m actually going to be in Indianapolis at some point and Illinois speaking in some place before I get home, you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. Look under announcements, and you’ll see the places I’m going to be. Maybe if you’re in the Midwest in one of these states, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, maybe I’ll be near you. Never know. If you want to join us, we’d love to meet you. All right, we’re going to go to the phones at this point, and we’re going to talk to Kerry from Fort Worth, Texas. Hi, Kerry. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Steve. Hey, I’ve listened to you answer questions about the role of women in the church and many times, and all the times that I’ve listened, I’ve always wondered why you didn’t reference 1 Timothy 2, 13 and 14. Well, I usually do. I usually do.
SPEAKER 03 :
Actually, I don’t know if I ever talk about the subject without referencing that passage. That’s the main passage on the subject. I mean, there’s also… There’s also 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14, but the main passage on the subject is 1 Timothy 2. Are you talking about those verses specifically about how the man was first formed, then the woman, and I don’t talk about that part of the passage? Is that what you mean?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 03 :
I see.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 08 :
You did reference it the other day, but you said, I don’t have time to get into it. Do you have time to get into it now?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, maybe so. Part of it’s very difficult to understand. Part of it’s not too difficult. So in 1 Timothy 2 and verse 12, Paul says, I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. And I understand this to be specifically with reference to being in the function of an elder in the church. But then he gives his reason. His reason, he says in verse 13, for Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. Nevertheless, she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with self-control. Now, Paul gives two reasons why he does not put women in the position of the leadership of the church over the men. One of them has to do with the order of creation. He says God made man first and then the woman. Now, some people say, well, how is that a reason? You know, that’s just a so what? How does that have any impact on the question of women being leaders of the church? And I think he’s assuming that his readers know something about the creation story and that God made man and gave him dominion over all things. And he also had him named the animals, which was an emblem of his dominion over them. And then he made the woman to be his helper. And so I think Paul is assuming that we know that man was made first and given dominion over everything. Now, the woman shares that dominion, but she was made secondarily to be his helper. And I think that he sees in that a situation where the man… By order of creation, God made it very clear that man was the one to take the lead and the woman was to assist him. And then he says, and, you know, the woman was deceived and fell in the transgression. Adam was not deceived. Now, he did fall. And he shouldn’t have. And perhaps he’s more guilty than the woman is. But he’s pointing out. that the woman was deceived and fell. And he may be referring there to the fact that when God came looking for them in the garden after they sinned, he asked the woman, you know, why have you done this? And she said, the serpent deceived me. And God’s response to that was essentially, you’re going to have more sorrow in childbearing, more pain in childbearing, And he says to her that her desire will be to her husband, but he shall reign over her, or he shall rule over her. And so that as a consequence of the fall, God announced that the husband would rule over the wife. Now, you know, I’ve heard different people give different interpretations of that, but the point is Paul is using that. The way he interpreted it, its implications were, that the woman should be at least subordinate to her husband. Now, the Bible doesn’t say that all women are subordinate to all men, but it does say the man is the head of the woman, of his wife. And so, you know, if a woman were an elder in the church, presuming her husband was in the church, she’d be in authority over him. And in order to keep the proper arrangement, between the husband and the wife, and by extension, men and women in their general roles, Paul says he doesn’t confuse that issue by putting women in authority over the men. Now, would he ever make an exception to that? Maybe. I don’t know. He doesn’t say. But that’s the reasons he gives. And, yeah, I don’t always go into that part just because there’s so much to say about this. But it does make it very clear that Paul’s reasoning for this is not, as some people imagine, that there were some cultural problems in that day and age where people would object to women in that role. Now, he could have said that, but he didn’t. He said, no, it’s because of the way God made things. It’s the way things transpired with the man and the woman in the Garden of Eden. And since history will not ever go back and be redone, it doesn’t change like cultures do. Cultures change, and if Paul was just basically basing it on culture, We could say, well, his culture was different than ours, and different issues would apply. Yeah, but he wasn’t basing it on that. He was basing it on the way God made things, and that’s not going to change. History is not going to be redone a different way. Don’t get a redo on the beginning of history. So that’s what I see Paul doing there, using those two facts. One, that God made man first, and then as a result of the fall, God changed. also pronounced that the woman would be subject to her husband. And those are reasons that Paul gives for not putting the woman in the position of the leadership of the church.
SPEAKER 08 :
Do you think that this implies that women are subject to deception more than a man?
SPEAKER 03 :
Some people have read that into it. I don’t know that we have to read that into it. I will say, Many men have started cults, and many men have been deceived by them. But then some women have started cults, too. I mean, I think deception goes – I think human beings are subject to deception. It’s true. Many men might be less subject to some kinds of deception than women would be because, you know, a lot of men are just not led by their emotions as much. Some men are. I mean, you can’t say anything about men and have it apply to all men or say anything about women and have it apply to all women. But there are some generalities you can make. For example, you say men are usually taller than women. Well, there’s some women that are taller than some men. So, I mean, we’re not denying that, but typically men are taller than women, and that’s a generality. And typically, men are less moved by emotions than women are. That’s not saying men are better. It’s just saying they’re different. And so it may be that Paul feared that a woman would be more moved by emotion, and therefore more subject to deception. But he doesn’t specifically say that. He doesn’t say women are subject to deception. He said in the Garden of Eden, it was the woman who was deceived. Now, that’s not saying anything about modern women or any other women. He’s simply stating a historical fact. Because the woman was deceived and because God pronounced upon her that she had to now be subject to her husband, that’s why he doesn’t put them in charge. It would be, I mean, some people might feel that women more easily are deceived than men. And, you know, I’m sure that women are subject to some kinds of deception because of, you know, that appeal to the emotions perhaps more than most men are. Though men, of course, are subject to other kinds of temptations that women maybe don’t have as much of. So, I don’t think we can make a general statement about men or women, any individual man or individual woman being, by dint of their gender, more likely to go astray. I think men and women go astray fairly equally. And I don’t see Paul making that point, though some people read that into what he said there.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, great, Dave, and I hope we have a very blessed time in Michigan.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thank you, Kerry. God bless you. Good talking to you. Okay, our next caller is going to be Rick from Napa, California. Hey, Rick, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hi, Steve. I have a question about the 70 weeks. And, of course, Jesus said, Matthew 24, 15, that he pointed that out. I believe he was pointing to the 70 weeks prophecy. and saying that we ought to understand it, which makes it pretty important. Well, it’s pretty obvious that the 69 weeks were fulfilled by the time Jesus was on the cross. And that leaves the 70th week, which he said would be a seven-year covenant, and it would have a beginning, and of course it would have an end. I pretty much view that as not yet having been fulfilled. What do you think?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, there are people, dispensationalists and some others, who believe that Jesus was crucified at the end of the 69th week and that the beginning of the 70th week, which you would expect would occur right after the end of the 69th week, that that was postponed, that was forestalled, and that it won’t be until the end of the world, really, when the 70th week is played out. And that’s what people identify often as the seven-year tribulation, the 70th week. Now, I don’t see it that way myself. There are a variety of starting points for the 70 weeks and a variety of ending points, which makes it very difficult. And really, many people, most people have their favorite starting point or their favorite ending point. But actually, you know, there’s the decree of Cyrus. In 539 B.C., that sometimes is taken as the beginning point of 70 weeks, there’s two different decrees of Artaxerxes. I think one of them was 458 and the other one was 444 or 445, thereabouts. And each of them has individually been chosen by different people to be the starting point. You’ve got three different decrees. The prophecy says, from the going forth of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem… to Messiah, the prince, will be seven weeks and 62 weeks. That’s a total of 69 weeks. So the distance from whichever decree is the beginning, and like I say, there’s three different possible starting points, and each one has its own advocates. I mean, there are scholars of equal rank who have taken each of these different views, different ones. So we don’t really, I mean, really could be any of them. But then it’s 69 weeks until the Messiah, the Prince. Now, 69 weeks is 483 years, since a week is considerably seven years. So 483 years from a decree, one of those decrees, to the Messiah. But what point in the Messiah’s life? Are we talking about the Messiah’s birth? Are we talking about his death? Are we talking about the beginning of his public ministry? I mean, what’s the end point of this? And there are people who take different views on that. As you mentioned, and as I mentioned, there are some who take it that Jesus’ crucifixion took place at the end of the 69th week. There are many people, including some church fathers and many scholars, who believe that Jesus’ baptism was the end of the 69th week. Now, There may be some other views, but those two are the principal ones, and we have to look at those possibilities. If Jesus’ ministry began at the end of the 69th week, and therefore at the beginning of the 70th week, since the weeks don’t seem to have any gaps in them, at least the way it’s prophesied, then Jesus’ ministry would have begun at the beginning of the 70th week, and he was crucified in the midst of the week, three and a half years into it. And therefore, as it says, that in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices to cease. Well, Jesus’ death did. Jesus’ death did bring an end to the legitimacy of the sacrificial system. The New Testament tells us that. And while the Jews may have still offered sacrifices for another 40 years after that, they were illegitimate. And frankly, you know, even if Jews offered sacrifices today, they wouldn’t be legitimate because the sacrificial system is ended. It ended when Jesus died. He caused an end of the sacrifices. And it says he’s also cut off, and that’s his death. So I personally believe that Jesus did begin his ministry at the beginning of the 70th week. A half of that week, three and a half years, ran its course, and Jesus died and ended the sacrificial system. The question then would be, when would the last three and a half years be? Now, the 70 weeks total are said to be the time that God has determined upon the holy city of Jerusalem and the people of Daniel. And God did continue after Jesus’ death to deal only with Jewish people, Daniel’s people, for a few years more. We don’t have an exact date, but we do know that at a certain point, and it was by most chronologies, it was around three years after Jesus’ death, Saul of Tarsus was met by Jesus on the road to Damascus, and he was commissioned to be an apostle to the Gentiles, which is the first time that an apostle is selected primarily to go to the Gentiles. And that would perhaps be the time that marked the end of the 70th week, the end of like three and a half years after Jesus’ death. God is no longer dealing exclusively with the Jews. He’s now commissioned somebody specifically to go out and plant churches among the Gentiles. So that’s one way of looking at it. There are other ways. If Jesus died at the end of the 69th week, well, then the popular view, the dispensational view, is the clock stopped ticking. The 70th week didn’t happen. But it’s going to. But there’s been like almost 2,000 years between the end of the 69th week and the still future beginning of the 70th week. To my mind, that seems less likely because, I mean, obviously if the whole prophecy is supposed to take 490 years, and if you’ve got 2,000 years sandwiched in there, you’ve really got a period of time five times that length rather than that length. So, I mean, if God says this is the number of years it’s going to be, it turns out it’s going to be five times that long. well, then he might as well have told them nothing about it at all because it would only mislead. It would not – I mean, if it’s going to be really 2,500 years instead of 500 years about, then it would be less confusing to just say nothing about it. And yet, I think that our tech is literal 490 years. That’s my impression. So it’s a little different than maybe yours, but that’s okay. People can have different views about this. I appreciate your call. Jim in Sacramento, California. How are you doing?
SPEAKER 06 :
Not as well. For the first time in nine weeks and two days, I passed out and fell this morning.
SPEAKER 03 :
And you’ve done that many times. Have you seen the cardiologist?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yesterday in Los Gatos. And we’re talking around about the 29th or 30th of September to get the pacemaker put in my heart.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay. Well, I’m glad you’re going to get one. Listen, your line is all crackly. We can’t talk for long. Go ahead and give me your question.
SPEAKER 06 :
Respect and interesting, your previous caller was from my longtime hometown of Napa.
SPEAKER 04 :
What’s your question, Jim?
SPEAKER 06 :
On the 70 weeks, are you familiar with the Seventh-day Adventist position that concludes back in 1844? No.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I am familiar with the fact that the Seventh-day Adventists did believe that 1844 was a significant year. Of course, the Millerites, the Seventh-day Adventists were part of the Millerites at that time. They weren’t yet the Seventh-day Adventists, but Ellen G. White and her husband and so forth, they were with the Millerite movement. Miller predicted that Jesus would come back in 1844, and when he didn’t, the Millerite movement fell apart, but the Seventh-day Adventists A movement picked up on it and claimed that something did happen in 1844. It just wasn’t what they were expecting. But I don’t know how they used the 70 weeks for that. What I know they did use was the prophecy in Revelation. that the beast would continue his blasphemies for 1260 days. And the Seventh-day Adventists took the view that each day represents a year, and that they took the view that the beast is the papacy. And so they figured the career of the papacy from its beginning to its fall would be 1,260 years. And they must have put the beginning of the papacy somewhere in the 500s or 600s to make it work out that way. Obviously, they seem to have been mistaken about that. But, no, I don’t know how they used the 70 weeks for that. All right. Hey, Jim, thanks for your call. Your line has too many crackles on it. It does every time you call. I’m sorry to say that. Jim calls from a hospital, from an institution, and he’s on a phone there, which is a landline, but certainly doesn’t have a very good connection. Okay, Odell in Detroit, Michigan. Welcome.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yes, hello there.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi.
SPEAKER 09 :
How are you today?
SPEAKER 03 :
I’m fine, but if you have a question, we’re going to have to hear it because we’ve got a break coming up.
SPEAKER 09 :
Oh, okay. Well, my question is… And the old and new scripture, it talks about all of us being on the same, you know, of course, as believers. But the way ministry is practiced, a lot of it is on the education of the man. And how can we ever become a unit if everybody puts their own agenda?
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, so you’re talking about different denominations, different churches, each have their own doctrines and agendas. Is that what you’re referring to?
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, it seems to be like that, more so than just following what’s the Scripture and Word.
SPEAKER 03 :
Uh-huh. Yeah, I hear you. Well, yeah, I mean, the Bible does say that we’re all one body, we’re on one path following Jesus and so forth, but it’s true. Man does mess things up. the church is made up of people, and all the people who are part of the true body of Christ are following Jesus. Now, they don’t all have the same opinions about everything, because following Jesus doesn’t necessarily predict for all having the same opinions. The twelve apostles themselves came from different political backgrounds. One was a Roman collaborator. One was like a zealot that wanted to overthrow the Romans. But they were following Jesus, and their minds were being conformed by his teaching. And that’s what happens when we become followers of Jesus. We come from different backgrounds, prejudices, opinions, orientations, and we all begin to change. We all begin to follow Jesus, and we begin to change. But it takes a long time, and it’ll take a longer time if people start being resistant to change. If people are not listening to the Holy Spirit, but they’re trying to promote their own agendas, like you said, it’s often the case since the church became a corporation and an institution such as it is, which is not the way Jesus set it up or the apostles, it’s easy for people to say, hey, I’m going to get my foot into the power structure here and I’m going to do things my way. Now, people like that shouldn’t even be in the church. But since the church seems to accept people that shouldn’t be in it, because, I mean, Jesus made it very clear who belongs to him and who doesn’t, the followers of his church. He says, if you continue in my words, you’re my disciples indeed. And he said, if anyone come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Now, if only people like that were in the church, we wouldn’t have people pushing their way forward. Because once you’ve taken up your cross and denied yourself, you’re not pushing your own agenda anymore. But unfortunately, the churches apparently are happy to have anyone show up who can put money in the bag when it’s passed. And that means there’s a lot of people there who are in no sense true disciples of Jesus, or at least not by the terms he described disciples of his. And if they’re not, then they kind of mess things up. So that’s how denominations get started. People get divided over differences of opinion. from different people who are pushing their way. And that’s not how it should be. But the true church of Jesus Christ is made up of those who are truly disciples. Now, you don’t find them all meeting in one place. They’re all over the world. And you’ll probably find some of those in almost every church. But there’s no one church. That is no one organized church that is identified as the true body of Christ. That’s something that is a spiritual membership. And so the true body of Christ are united in one mission, and that is to follow Jesus Christ and to walk in the Spirit. But people in institutional churches, they’re not always on the same page that way. And that’s why that happens, I think. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming up, so don’t go away. We are listener supported. If you’d like to help us out, you can go to our website. Everything’s free there, but you can see how to donate at thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be right back. Don’t go away. We have another half hour.
SPEAKER 02 :
Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. Welcome to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Steve has nothing to sell you today but everything to give you. When the radio show is over, go to thenarrowpath.com where you can study, learn, and enjoy with free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. We thank you for supporting the listeners supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. See you at thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 03 :
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, feel free to call them in. Right now I’m looking as Switchboard has quite a few open lines. This is a good time to call if you want to get through. We only have a half hour, so don’t waste any time. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And we’re going to go to the phones and talk to Dean from St. Augustine, Florida. Welcome to the Narrow Path, Dean. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hey, Steve. It’s good to hear from you again. Hey, I had a… A little issue with my church, actually one of my friends, he was my best friend, and he screwed my mom out of a lot of money. He did contracting work, and he’s a Christian. He says he is, and I always thought he was. And I listened to your lectures on strategies for unity.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 07 :
And I also know about Matthew 18, dealing with a sinning brother. And I just don’t know if I’m applying it the right way. I talked to him about it. He didn’t really want to hear it. He didn’t even apologize to my mom about it. And I brought it to a couple guys at the church, and they talked to him about it. But he still goes to the church. It’s a very uncomfortable situation because I don’t really associate with him. And I don’t know if I could still talk to him when I see him there. I mean, I don’t not read to him. I just don’t. I wish he wasn’t there, you know. I wish he would repent and have reconciliation. Right. I don’t know how to approach this. Am I doing it the right way, or is there a better solution here?
SPEAKER 03 :
The church won’t really… So you’ve confronted him. You’ve confronted him about the fact that he ripped your mom off for some contract work he did. He blew you off. And so some other men in the church talked to him about it?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 03 :
And they pointed out to him that he needs to do the right thing?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I believe so, but… I’m not sure exactly what kind of discussion they had with him.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, well, you might ask them, did you confront him with his need to repent and for him to make this right? If they say, well, no, we didn’t really get around to that, then you probably should get some guys who will, you know, get some guys who will, because the idea is if he’s not listening to you when you say he’s sinned against you, mom, well, you need some guys to back you up and say, yeah, that is a sin. You contracted to do this and charge that or whatever, provided this, and that’s not what you agreed to, you need to make that right. You need some people who will back you up with him and say, listen, yeah, this is a sin. This is something that’s not okay. You cannot continue to claim to be a follower of Christ if you’re not going to repent of this kind of thing. Now, maybe those two guys did talk to him about that, but I guess you might want to ask them, what did you exactly talk to him about? Because he doesn’t seem to have changed. And ask him, did you confront him about his need to do this right? If they say, well, we didn’t really say that, then you need to find someone who will get them to do it. And if he won’t listen to them, that’s when you take it to the church. Now, in the modern church, there are churches that want to obey Jesus, and there’s churches that have no real interest in obeying Jesus. They want to run the church the way they run the church. And they don’t care what Jesus said. Now, I don’t know which kind of church this is. If it’s a church that wants to obey Jesus, then the church will officially confront him after that. And if he doesn’t repent, he’ll be excommunicated, really, until he does repent. Now, Jesus said once it’s gotten to that point, he’s like a pagan. He’s not like a Christian. In that case, I believe it’d be possible to take him to court for the money, though you could just forgive him. You know, I don’t like taking people to court, even if they’re not Christians. We’re not allowed to take Christians to court. But is he, I mean, does he have a relationship with you and your family other than as a contractor? I mean, is he a friend or anything like that?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, he was my best friend. And I’ve got to say, it’s a little bit more nuanced because he went back and forth with my mom. He basically did about 25% of the work. He asked for a cash advance. He took about 75% of the money, and she wanted a refund because he said he couldn’t finish the work. So he did 25% of the work, took most of the money. She wanted a refund. He initially didn’t want to give her a refund. He said, how much do I owe you then if you want a refund? She gave him a price, and he said, that’s too much. And he offered $1,000, which was, you know, that’s only, that’s still, he’s still taking more than half the money for 25% of the work after $1,000 has been paid. And my mom agreed to it because she said that’s all she’s going to get. So the guy at the church said, well, your mom agreed to it. So I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe if she did agree to it. But she only agreed to it because she knew she wouldn’t get any more. I still think he’s wrong.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, the fact that she did agree to it, technically, you know, it’s like she’s forgiven him the rest, you know. if he said, listen, I can give you a thousand, will you settle for that? And if she says, well, yeah, I will. She’s basically saying, whatever else you owe me, I’m kind of forgiving you that, I’ll settle for this. Which means, technically, he doesn’t owe her more, even though maybe rightly he should. And he might have, she might have been pressured or deceived or something like that. I don’t know the whole case, but But if she let him off with that, then he’s off. Now, you might say to him, you know, my mom really got kind of ripped off in this deal. Because as a Christian, if he thinks he’s a Christian, and maybe he is, then he should, in his heart, want to make it right to her, even if he doesn’t have further legal obligation. If he knows that he took more money. from her than he provided in the equivalent of work, then he should want to give back more or finish the work. But, yeah, I mean, this is something that maybe because she did that, church discipline won’t work because he, I mean, technically if the church says, well, you know, she got that and settled with it, that’s true. Maybe she shouldn’t have. Maybe she should. But I’d say that as far as legality, this thing is settled. And maybe, you know, it’d be on his conscience that maybe he’ll feel convicted. But maybe he won’t. But I’d say, yeah, since she agreed to it, we can’t really press it beyond that, I’m afraid.
SPEAKER 07 :
I understand. Do I have an obligation to welcome him back into my life, though? I mean, I don’t want to shun him, but I feel animosity.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. Well, yeah, I think, I mean… You don’t have to be friends with him if you don’t trust. If you feel like, wow, he’s a different kind of guy than I thought when he was my friend, this is not the kind of person I want to be close friends with, you’re very much entitled to choose who you’re close to and who you trust and so forth. And if he seems he’s untrustworthy, then you don’t have to be on the same terms with him before. But you’d have to give up your right to hold it against him in the sense of requiring more from him at this point.
SPEAKER 07 :
I see. All right.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, Dave. Sorry that happened to your mom. God bless you.
SPEAKER 07 :
God bless you, too.
SPEAKER 03 :
Bye. Bye now. Okay, Jeff from Poolville, Texas. Welcome to the Narrow Path, Jeff. Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 10 :
Steve, did the gospel writers get together and discuss what they were going to write? Because many of the stories, they’re similar. I know they’re not exact. And I know John’s a little different. But if they were writing independently, it seems, how would they write the same types of stories? Because, you know, they were with him longer, you know, for years.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, you know, there’s this thing called the synoptic problem that Bible scholars talk about. And the synoptic refers, of course, to the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. are called the Synoptic Gospels. John is not one of them because they, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are very similar to each other, tell a lot of the same stories and a lot of the same discourses of Jesus and so forth, whereas John doesn’t overlap them much. Most of the miracles of Jesus are not found in John but are found in the others. Most of the discourses in John are not found in the others. The others are very close to each other in content. John’s not as close. So the three that are very similar have come to be called synoptic. It comes from the two Greek particles that basically means to see together, or maybe it’s Latin. But the point here is that the synoptic problem that scholars deal with is how is it that Matthew, Mark, and Luke… have so many of the same stories as each other and in many respects give a lot of the same detail as each other and yet not identical. I mean, sometimes the details are a little different or the order is different or a significant story and one is left out of another. You know, it’s like they have enough in common with each other to kind of look like, you know, they were working from the same source. I mean, maybe a written source or something. And yet they have enough different from each other that it looks like maybe they weren’t. Now, I’ll tell you what most scholars say, and I have a slightly different take on it. Most scholars say that Mark was the first gospel written. It’s the shortest. Matthew and Luke have most of Mark’s contents in them, not everything. I mean, there’s a few things that are unique to Mark that aren’t in Matthew or Luke, but The vast majority of what Mark includes in his shortest gospel also is found either in Matthew or Luke or both. So some say, well, okay, we’ll talk about the Markan material, the stuff from Mark. That Matthew and Luke have Markan material. Mark was one of their sources. They used Mark as a source. But then, of course, Luke and Matthew have a lot of things that aren’t in Mark. Where did they get those? Well, a lot of scholars say there was another source that Matthew and Luke used besides Mark, and they call it Q. Now, Q, they’ve never found a document Q. It’s a hypothetical document. It is thought there must have been a document. They call it Q because the German word Quelle starts with a Q, means source. So it’s a German word for source. So they call it the Q document. Now, they say that most of the discourses of Jesus and some of the other material about Jesus that isn’t in Mark but is found in Matthew and or Luke or both, that that maybe came from Q. But no one has even proved that Q exists. But what they’re trying to do is find out why there’s so much that’s similar and yet so much that isn’t similar. How the percentages work out that way. My thought is this, and this is just based on realistic knowledge of what they did. Matthew and Peter were among the apostles in Jerusalem. They also were witnesses of the life of Jesus. And after Pentecost, these guys lived in Jerusalem. with the other apostles for some years before they dispersed. Now, what were they doing? They were telling the stories of Jesus. That was what they did. That was preaching the gospel. They went out publicly, and they told people the stories of Jesus. And they told them to the gathered church, too, because lots of the converts hadn’t seen Jesus, and therefore they told it to them. So these apostles spent their lives preaching. retelling these stories. And they were in each other’s presence, for the most part, at the beginning. Now, they didn’t write any Gospels at that point. But later on, Matthew wrote a Gospel, apparently on his own, in Palestine. Peter was later in Rome, and Mark was with him. And according to one of the church fathers, or more than one, Mark simply wrote the Gospel as he heard it from Peter. So Mark’s Gospel would be really the Gospel according to Peter’s as written by Mark. So you’ve got Matthew and Peter remembering things, and later on Luke probably had both of those, plus maybe some other interviews he did in Jerusalem, because he knew the people in Jerusalem. He knew them. He wasn’t there with Jesus, but in the early church he knew the apostles, so he would have gathered information. And so you get a lot of the same stories because these apostles told the same stories. I mean, again, before they ever wrote anything. And by the way, probably nothing was written down until at least 20 or more years later. than the crucifixion. Some think closer to 40 years. Now, that means that these guys were telling these stories orally in each other’s presence in many cases and sometimes independently for 20 or 30 or 40 years before they wrote them down. And by the time they wrote them down, they knew them well. but they may not remember all the same details the same, like the order of events in a few cases, or the specific words Jesus used when he made a saying that they all include, that maybe there’s a slightly different wording. So that they didn’t, I mean, they did and they didn’t collaborate. I think they collaborated in the sense of their oral preaching in the early years, long before any of them thought they were going to write any books. I think they were collaborating in preaching the Gospels, verbally and telling these stories for years. But by the time they wrote their gospels, they weren’t even in the same country. You know, Matthew was in Palestine. Mark was probably in Rome, it is thought. He could have been in Alexandria because he was there later on. Egypt. Luke was probably in Rome also. He was with Paul, you know, around the time that Paul was imprisoned there. although he had traveled with Paul to places like Jerusalem and Caesarea and places where the other apostles were, and had spent time, he was able to interview them. So you’ve got, you know, there’s this pool of knowledge that the apostles had. But they didn’t write any of it down for a couple decades or so after that. which means that by the time they wrote it down, they didn’t all have exactly the same list of stories. There were some of the same stories and some differences of them. And they did tend to also sometimes paraphrase because Jesus preached in Aramaic. But when they wrote the Gospels, they wrote them in Greek. So they had to translate from Aramaic to Greek. And since they’re working independently, they didn’t always make the exact same translation, which is the case, you know, when you use different translators. So there’s different things that would account for the differences in the stories, but also account for the sameness of them. Because these stories, when you tell these stories every day in your preaching, they probably take on more or less a standardized form. So that you end up, every time you tell the story, you tell it kind of the same way. And eventually, they’ve all told and heard those stories together so much that when they wrote them down, to a very large extent, they took a standardized form. Maybe not verbatim. So, you know, you’re asking if the apostles collaborated. They did not at the time of writing. But they certainly did, you know, they did compare notes when they were preaching in Jerusalem years before they wrote. And that would explain, I think, the phenomena of their books as they wrote them. Well, thank you. Thank you. Okay, Jeff. Thanks for your call, brother. Sorry, after you said thank you, I hit your button and you started talking again. I didn’t mean to cut you off. Our next caller is Daryl from Nebraska. Welcome to the Narrow Path, Daryl. Yes, how are you doing there? Good, thanks. Hello.
SPEAKER 11 :
All right. I’m an insider. I’m a spiritual insider. Insider? Yes, I’m an insider, a spiritual insider.
SPEAKER 03 :
What do you mean by that?
SPEAKER 11 :
Yes, I am a spiritual insider. Okay, I didn’t understand most of that. I didn’t understand most of that, but what is your question for me? I can pinpoint that, everything. Oh, yes, I can. I know my 123s, my ABCs, me, myself, and I, and I know we live around monsters, creatures, and things. I know all that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 11 :
And I’ve been waiting for the phone call. Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Waiting for the phone call? Okay. Well, I don’t think this is going to be it, but thanks for your call, Daryl. Let’s see here. We’ve got Sheila from Atlanta, Georgia next. Sheila, welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes. Hi, Steve. I’m excited to get on here, finally. Okay. I’m calling see because I find myself very concerned about a few things. And I’d like to explain it by first talking about the conversation that Jesus had with Nicodemus when Nicodemus came to him at night. And Jesus told him that, you know, you’re not going to see heaven. Nobody’s going to see heaven unless they’re born again. And everybody has these different takes on what born again means. And Nicodemus obviously was trying to get more from Jesus to explain that. And Jesus mentioned he had to be born of the water and the spirit. Now, as we move further into the Christian faith and so forth, there’s one thing that the old… the Israelites or the Jews did not have, that we in the Christian age have and have been taught is about the Trinity, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right? And when we’re baptized, we’re baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And correct me if I’m wrong, that is the only instance where we invoke those names together And the Christian sort of, there’s a complete situation where the angels in heaven are rejoicing and all this other stuff, right? So every time I hear people talk about it.
SPEAKER 03 :
What is your question for me, ma’am?
SPEAKER 05 :
Born again. Can you talk about baptism and the Nicodemus question about the water? and the Spirit, and why people are now only saying that, ask Jesus to come into your heart.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, that’s kind of scattered there. Okay, let’s see. When Jesus told Nicodemus that a man has to be born of water and the Spirit, There are many people, and it sounds like maybe you’re one of them, that believe that being born of the water and born of the Spirit refers to being baptized in water and baptized in the Spirit. It’s a very common thing among some to equate the word born with the word baptized. Now, baptized means to be immersed in water. Being born is not the same idea. Now, being born of water could be, I guess, a symbol for being baptized, but I don’t make that equation. Jesus spoke of needing, a man needs to be born twice and a woman too. He has to be born the first time, obviously, or else it’s a non-issue. He’s born of the flesh. He used that term also in the next verse. In verse 5 of John 3, he said you have to be born of water and born of the Spirit. In the next verse, he also talks about the same two things, I think. He talks about being born of the flesh and born of the Spirit. So it seems to me that being born of the Spirit is the same in both verses, but he uses different terminology for the first of these. It’s being born of the flesh, being physically born, which I believe is therefore the same as being born of water. It’s not talking about baptism. It’s talking about being born, like when you’re born. When a baby is born, the pregnant mother there’s a breaking of the waters. And I heard of a case not long ago where there wasn’t, and I’m sure from time to time there isn’t. But for the most part, you know, there’s a breaking of the waters, and the baby comes out amidst, you know, a flood of waters, as it were. And I’m not sure why that would be called born of water, but the fact that that term seems to be substituted in the next verse, John 3, 6, with born of the flesh. I think born of the flesh makes it very clear. It’s talking about physical birth. So you’ve got to be born the first time. Now, Jesus isn’t telling people they have to be born the first time like they haven’t already. He’s just saying that being born the first time is not enough. You have to be born another time, too. You see, Nicodemus was Jewish, probably of high birth, but certainly of pure Jewish extraction. And the Jews believed that by physical birth as a Jew and being circumcised in infancy, they already qualified for the kingdom of God. They figured the kingdom of God was for the Jews. And if they were Jewish by birth, which was, of course, natural birth, they were in. And Jesus said, no, you need to be born not just of the flesh. You need to also be born of the spirit. You need to be born again. So he’s saying, yeah, I need a spiritual birth. Now, spiritual birth takes place when you pass from death into life, as Paul speaks of it in Ephesians 2 and in Colossians 2. He talks about how we were dead in trespass sins, but he made us alive in Christ. That, I believe, is what’s called regeneration. In Titus chapter 3, Paul talks about regeneration, which is, I think, the same thing. I think it’s 3.5 in Titus. And that’s being born again. So you pass from death to life. You were spiritually dead. You’re born again. You’re now alive. You have a new life, just like when a baby’s born. Only it’s a spiritual life. It’s a new spiritual experience of living and living in the spiritual realm. So that’s what being born again is. Now, as far as being baptized is concerned, I don’t think being born of water is a reference to being baptized in water, though I do believe we’re supposed to be baptized in water. Jesus commanded us to be baptized in water, so that’s a necessity. If you’re born again, you should also be baptized. And that’s, I believe, you know, the connection there. All right. We’re going to talk to Craig in Maine. Craig, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 12 :
Hello. Hello. Thanks for taking my call. I’ll try to make it quick. My question is, I’m looking at Revelation 2.26, and it says, And he that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end, to him I will give power over nations. And where it says my works, there’s like a reference lower down leading to another scripture verse. And it’s leading you to reference John 6, 29. But I don’t have a John chapter 6. And I’m wondering if anybody does and why it wouldn’t be in the book, but it would be referenced in the book.
SPEAKER 03 :
You may be looking at the book of 1 John. There’s not a chapter 6 in 1 John. But there is a chapter 6 in the Gospel of John. Are you aware there’s four books in the New Testament that have John’s name in their title? And 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John, none of them are more than five chapters long. In fact, 2 and 3 John are only one chapter each, and 1 John only has five chapters. So when you say you don’t have a John chapter 6 in your Bible, I think you’re probably looking at 1 John. You need to look earlier. Look at the fourth book in the New Testament. It’s called the Gospel of John. And you’ll find 21 chapters in that one, and there is a chapter 6 there, and that’s probably where you need to be looking for that cross-reference.
SPEAKER 12 :
Thank you very much. I just finished reading the book for the first time like a week ago, and I’m still on my way through.
SPEAKER 03 :
Great. Well, great. Yeah, look at the Gospel of John. It’s the fourth book in the New Testament. The other Johns are in the back of the book.
SPEAKER 12 :
You’re absolutely right, and it had flipped my attention because I had recently read the letters from John.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right.
SPEAKER 12 :
Leaving the other one out of my brain. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I’m glad you called so we can clear that up. God bless you. Have a good day. All right. Bye now. All right. You’ve been listening to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. We do get a variety of questions, some of them unusual and some of them more mainstream. But we’ve been doing this daily, five days a week, for 28 years. And we’ve got a lot of those archives online. at our website. We’ve got lots of my lectures at our website. Everything is free at our website. You can go there and all kinds of resources. It’s at thenarrowpath.com. We are listener supported. If you want, you can write to us at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593, or the website thenarrowpath.com. Have a good weekend.
