Menu
Join Steve Gregg as he delves into intriguing Bible discussions with callers from across the country. This episode explores challenging passages from Jeremiah, discusses Jesus’ relationship with his disciples, and considers whether afflictions are God’s way of teaching us. With thoughtful interpretations and theological insights, this episode promises substantial food for thought for those curious about faith and scripture. Be sure to tune into these engaging conversations that test traditional ideas and invite listeners to ponder their understanding of the Bible.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Good afternoon, and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for an hour to take your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we welcome you to call. We’ll talk about them. If you disagree with the host, you’re welcome to call. We can talk about that, too. The number to call is 844-484. 5737. That’s 844-484.
SPEAKER 1 :
5737.
SPEAKER 05 :
And, you know, I don’t think I have any announcements to make. I’m just going to go to the phones and talk to Ryan in Linwood, Washington. Hi, Ryan. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, Steve. So I was listening to your verse-by-verse in Jeremiah, and I think it’s I think it’s chapter 31, and it says that God will do a new thing on the earth, and a woman will encompass a man.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s Isaiah, I believe.
SPEAKER 03 :
Jeremiah.
SPEAKER 05 :
Is it? Okay, I’m sorry.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, I mean, I just read it. Oh, yes. I read it.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes, I got you. In verse 22. Yeah, Isaiah also several times speaks about God doing a new thing. But here, yeah, you’re right. In Jeremiah 31, 22. Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
So I just have kind of a set-up question and then my suggestion. Is it true that, at least from the records, that Jesus was the first rabbi to have women followers?
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s an interesting question. I know that the Jews generally thought it was a waste of time to teach women. And therefore, I would be shocked, and I really don’t think it is the case, that any rabbi would have had disciples that were female. Because they believed it was, you know, you might as well flush the law down the toilet as readily as teach it to a woman. That’s what the rabbis would say. So you’re probably correct. I’ve never done the research to find out if there were any rabbis previously who did, but But given their general attitude, it seems to me that they did not take women as disciples at all. And Jesus, of course, Jesus didn’t choose any women as disciples, but there were women who certainly were disciples of his and traveled around listening and supporting him too. So he probably was the first. But they were not in an official capacity, disciples, I think.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. So just my thought was maybe… instead of a new thing on the earth, if it would be in the land, a new thing in the land, and that women were encompassing him? That was just my thought. That was just a thought.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, frankly, commentators have really wrestled with this particular verse, because it’s not obvious, even in the context, what it means or what it even could mean. It says, how long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? Meaning Israel, of course. He says, for the Lord has created a new thing in the earth. A woman shall encompass a man. Now, encompass a man, surround a man. Some translations would understand this to mean protecting a man. Like you might put your arms around your children to protect them from danger, you know. Yeah, mine says sheltered. Shelter a man. Yeah, that kind of thing. So it can have all of those possible meanings, but exactly what the phenomenon in real life is that it’s talking about, I don’t know. And frankly, commentators don’t appear to know either. I mean, I’ve never found one that was completely persuasive. One commentator I remember said that a woman protecting a man is speaking figuratively of the reversal of roles, like between a weak party and a strong party. where men really generally protect women, but a woman protecting men would be like a role reversal, the weak one defending the strong one, like when God became a human being, like a baby. Right. And, you know, where he became weak and was sheltered by, you know, a woman. But then every woman does that to her children. So I’m not really sure that that’s the meaning here. I’ve never really been confident that I know what it’s saying.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, the first thing that popped to my mind was how all the apostles, the disciples, the men, ran and hid, and that the women were more bold and still in public. More courageous, yeah.
SPEAKER 05 :
That was the first thing that came to my mind. More willing to associate with him even at the danger of their lives. Yeah, well, I mean, you could be right. You could be right. Obviously, the words meant something, but it’s so obscure that scholars can’t agree on what it meant. And honestly, I’m not really sure if we chose among the various guesses and speculations about it, if we’d be better off for knowing. I’m not really sure it’s saying anything essential to us to know, but it does obviously, it’s supposed to mean something. That’s just one of those several things in the Bible that, you know, you’re just going to get a bunch of opinions about because it’s not obvious to us as moderns. Now, you know, there’s a good chance that in those days the readers or the hearers of Isaiah would have made some sense of it. Because remember, they lived almost 3,000 years before us. And he’s speaking in their language and in their culture and so forth. And it may have had some… intelligible meaning to them that we would miss because we’re not in their shoes and don’t have the surroundings and so forth that they had. I’m not trying to make excuses. I’m just saying there’s things that we don’t know just because they’re not made in unambiguous terms so much. Right. Okay. I mean, the temptation for many is to see this as a reference to the Incarnation and that, you know, a woman surrounds a man when he’s in her womb, but that’s not a new thing. I mean, the Incarnation is certainly a unique thing, but, you know, he says the Lord has created a new thing on the earth. Oh, really? What’s that? A woman surrounds or protects a man. Well, if it’s simply talking about a woman and a baby, that’s nothing new. That’s been going on since Adam and Eve. So… I’m not really sure what the new thing is here.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 05 :
But I appreciate your suggestion.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah. Okay. Well, God bless you, and thank you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thanks, Ryan. God bless you, too. All right. Dwight in Denver, Colorado. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 11 :
Hi, Steve. Just wondering, do you believe that when a believer dies… He goes to Abraham’s bosom or paradise until the second coming, or does he go immediately to heaven?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, insofar as we have any information relevant to that, and we don’t have very much, the things that Paul says to us about that is that he anticipates being absent from the body when he dies, but being at that time present with the Lord. He said that in 2 Corinthians 5. And also in Philippians 1, he said that he was eager to depart. He’s talking about death. He says, I’m not sure if I want to live longer or die sooner. I’m in prison. It’s miserable here. If I die, that’s great. It’s better. He says, I’d like to depart and be with the Lord, which is far better. However, it may be more useful to God to keep me around, so I may be stuck here for a while more. He’s contemplating the relative future. desirability of living on or dying. And when he speaks of the option of dying, he says, I’d love to depart and be with the Lord. So he believed that when he would die, he’d depart from his body, absent from the body, and he would then be with the Lord, as he said also in 2 Corinthians 5. Those are, you know, those are the most direct statements in the Bible we have about that particular question, in my opinion. So, to my mind, yeah, I mean, we do go directly with the Lord. Our spirit does. Clearly, our body doesn’t, because you can dig up any grave of a Christian who’s been buried and know his body’s still there. But that’s what’s resurrected on the last day. Those are the graves come forth.
SPEAKER 11 :
But unbelievers today… They do go to Hades, right?
SPEAKER 05 :
As far as I know, I mean, again, the Bible actually says less about what happens to unbelievers when they die than it says about what happens to believers when they die. And actually, it says very little about either. But the only clue that I know of that we have about unbelievers when they die is the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Now, you know, some people think it’s a true story. Some people think it’s a parable. I suspect it’s a parable and not a true story. But even if it is a true story, let’s just take that for the sake of argument and say he is talking about an actual case. He is not talking about a case of a believer who died after the cross because, of course, Jesus had not died yet and hadn’t been risen. So, you know, he’s talking about a situation pre-resurrection where And the unbeliever certainly found himself in torment flames. Now, is that how things remain after the resurrection when an unbeliever dies? Maybe so. I mean, we have nothing really to give us an alternative view on that. Some people think that when an unbeliever dies, they’re simply non-existent until the resurrection. And frankly, I think that could be true, but it doesn’t seem to have been true in that parable or in that story. So, you know, the question of whether that story is given in order to, you know, inform us about the state of the dead after they die or to make a different point, which is what I think would have something to do with letting that inform us about it. Okay.
SPEAKER 11 :
I appreciate it. Thank you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, Dwight. Thanks for your call. Good talking to you. Tina in Surrey, British Columbia. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hi, thank you for your service. I just want to know, does God mind if we have our occupation at night? Jesus was a carpenter and he worked during the day. And because some people who work at night do nothing during the day. And I’ll take my answer off the air. Thank you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Bye. I’m sorry. You’re saying when Jesus… Oh, now you’re gone. You hung up. Is it wrong to have an occupation at night because Jesus said the night comes when no one can work? If that’s your question, then, no, this would not forbid working at night. It would simply be an observation. In Jesus’ day, they didn’t have artificial light like we do. I mean, they had artificial light in the form of a torch. But a torch, in British speak, a torch means a flashlight. In historical language, it means a piece of wood with some combustible stuff at the end that you light a fire to, which, of course… You might put some pitch or some tar on it, which would cause it to burn longer. But it would be expensive. It would be inconvenient. And it would only light up a little area. You can’t be working out in the fields by torchlight because you only see a few feet around you. Working out in a field, you have to have a broader view. So people just didn’t work at night, generally speaking, in the ancient world. When the sun went down, they either went to bed, if they’re pretty decent folks, or they would perhaps go to parties and get drunk by torchlight, I suppose, lamp light, somewhere. I mean, Paul did say people get drunk at night, and they behave badly at night. But that would be the people who want to behave badly. What he’s saying is they don’t usually do that in the daylight. They’d rather do that in the dark and not have everyone be able to see what they’re doing. But the ordinary person that Jesus had in mind would have approximately 12 hours available each day for work. He says, you know, are there not 12 hours in the day? The night comes when no one can work. Well, okay, I think what he’s just saying is he’s not making a moral statement about how right or wrong it would be to work at night. He’s simply saying this is an illustration of the fact that we have limited time to do the business of our lives. There’s a purpose for us to fulfill, and just like every work day has its limits, night time comes and people can’t work after that, so our lives are like a work day, and the night is coming. Each of us will die, and it’ll be the end of opportunity for us to do any more of the work that God put us here to do. And Jesus is saying that as an argument for continuing his work even in a dangerous situation. So, you know, they said, well, you’re going to go down to Jerusalem and they tried to kill you there last time you were there. He said, well, we’ve got to work all day. The night time comes when no one can work. So, you know, I think he’s just saying We need to seize the day, seize the opportunity. And he’s not saying that if you happen to live in a later age where there was inexpensive, bright, artificial lighting that made it as possible to work at night as in the daytime, well, that, you know, his statement wouldn’t really be the same. I mean, not because morals change, but he’s not making a moral point. He’s stating the way things are or were in his day. He says the night comes when no one can work. He doesn’t say no one would be allowed to. They just can’t because it’s dark. So he’s simply using the illustration of the fact that the workday is limited to the daylight hours in order to convey the idea that everybody’s life is a workday that is limited. And there comes a time when that opportunity ends. So we better seize the opportunity while we still have the life. That’s what I understand his position to be and the point he’s making, not declaring something about morals or ethics with reference to working at night. Charles in Indianapolis, Indiana. Welcome to The Neuropath. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 10 :
Thanks for having me on the show. I listen to your show every day, sometimes twice a day, so I’m really thankful for your show. I have a question. And a short comment. So the comment, I wanted to read a scripture. It’s in 2 Peter 3.9. It just talks about the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. So my question is, so the same God that doesn’t want people to go to hell, so would you agree that God knows everything from the beginning to the end? So if he knows the end already, would you agree that the same Holy Spirit that knows the end is still trying to make a change? You know what I’m saying? Like to prevent people from going to hell. But it’s like still he knows the end, but how does that all work?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, as far as God’s foreknowledge of the end of each individual, that’s mysterious to us. There are actually theologians who believe that the Bible doesn’t necessarily teach that God knows the final choice people will make. Of course, the doctrine of God’s omniscience means he knows everything, but the Bible never uses the word omniscience. and never says he knows everything in some kind of unqualified sense. I mean, I have no problem believing that God knows the future, but there are some people who can make a case from Scripture where they would say, no, he doesn’t know what we’re going to do. So, you know, he finds out, you know, in real time. Now, that’s actually, in my opinion, one respectable option in terms of interpreting the relevant Scriptures on it. I don’t take that option. But let’s just say God does know the future. He knows who’s going to be saved and who’s not going to be saved. In my own mind, I don’t know how that would affect anything in real time. I mean, I don’t think the Bible ever says that God is going to do such and such a thing because he knows what people are going to do.
SPEAKER 10 :
Oh.
SPEAKER 05 :
You know? In other words, he might know, but I don’t really find that given as a reason for God’s actions. Now, you would think if God knows what’s going to happen, then it’s going to happen, obviously, and nothing else can change that because he knows it’s going to happen, it’s going to. And that would seem to conflict with the idea of having free will to change things. But You know, we have much fewer statements in the Bible declaring that God knows everything than we have in the Scripture telling us that God holds us accountable for the things we do and that we have a choice in the matter and that we’re responsible for the choices we make. And so I would say, you know, if we find any kind of tension between the idea that God knows what everyone’s going to do on the one hand and the view that, you know, well, then, you know, our fate is determined. It’s not our responsibility. We’d have to throw out the second. I’m sorry. We’d have to say, well, it is our responsibility, even though God knows. How do those things work out? Well, that’s something I don’t think has been explained to us. There are people who say, you know, there are people who say that the reason God knows what we’re going to do is because he can, He can take the trajectory of things that are happening already and have been happening for centuries and kind of project them into the future and determine how they’ll end. They would say a supercomputer could do that, too. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have free choice, but it might mean that it can predict what we would do in circumstances not predetermined. not based on whether we have free choice or not, but based on who we are and what our commitments are. I’m not arguing that. I’m saying I don’t know.
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay. Well, that helps me out in my thoughts. I think it’s a good answer. Well, thanks a lot for your time.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, Charles. Hey, thanks for your call.
SPEAKER 10 :
You’re welcome. Have a good day.
SPEAKER 05 :
You too. Okay, Sam in Seattle, Washington is next. Welcome to The Narrow Path, Sam.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi Steve, thank you for taking my call. I have a question in regards to the annihilation of the soul. So I know it’s a Seventh-day Adventist teaching, and we the mainstream evangelists, we might believe differently. However, lately I’ve had a few conversations with a friend, he kind of shifted or his opinions in regards to this and he’s like, well, based on the Bible, I believe that this is the answer of what happens, you know, with unsaved people after they die, you know, after the judgment that, you know, essentially they will be destroyed. Their souls will be destroyed since they exist. And, you know, I’m trying to look at the Bible to find what’s the more direct answer, I would say.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 06 :
I wanted to see what your opinion on that.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, that’s certainly the place to look. Yeah, if you search the scriptures, you’ll find that some scriptures do sound like they support the more popular view. I don’t know why it would be popular, but it’s the mainstream view that sinners are tormented alive forever and ever in hell. There are a few scriptures, not very many. I can find four or five possibly that may support suggest something like that. But there’s also an awful lot of scriptures that seem to say something else than that, and seem to say that the wages of sin is death, and the soul that sins will die. And Adam and Eve were told if they eat the wrong fruit, they will die. They weren’t told they’d be tormented forever, they were told they’d die. Now some people would say, well, spiritually death just means separated from God, but they’re still alive and conscious and suffering. Well, Well, I mean, if the Bible teaches that, fine, but I don’t find any definition of death in the Bible or in any dictionaries that say death means being separated from God. That may be a consequence of being dead, but that’s not the definition of the word die. It’s not even one of the definitions of die in any dictionary I’ve ever encountered. So if someone says, well, die means to just be separated from God, well, you can believe that, I guess, but I don’t. I wouldn’t be able to defend that if I were to say it that way. There’s very, very few verses that seem to say anything about eternal suffering after death, and the ones that are there are found in the most non-literal type context, like two of the passages are in Matthew 25, verses 41 and 46, which are in a parable about people being compared to sheep and goats, which is obviously not literal. We’re not literally sheep or goats. That’s a symbol. That’s a metaphor. And therefore, you know, the reference to this prolonged punishment could be, well, let’s just say it’s in a context that is not one of the most literal contexts in the Bible. And then the other passages, there might be three, are found in Revelation. And Revelation is certainly not the most literal book in the Bible. It’s got lots of symbolism. Now, I’m not saying these are symbolic. I’m saying they could be. because such information is not provided for us in any book that is primarily written in a literal genre. These are parables and visions and things like that are usually full of symbolism. At least that’s the ones we read of in the Bible are. So, you know, I don’t know. You know, I don’t really care. I don’t plan to go there, but it seems to me that those who would say that when people go to hell, they’re annihilated, would have a case, and perhaps a more robust case from Scripture, than those who hold to the traditional view. The main reason for holding the traditional view seems to be that it is the traditional view, and that it’s been held by Roman Catholics and Protestants of almost every denomination. It hasn’t always been held, especially among the Eastern Church, though some people in the Eastern Church probably hold it, It’s just that it’s not a clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture, which only means we may not be able to be sure. But, you know, the fact that annihilation is taught by Seventh-day Adventists used to be kind of off-putting to me from the view. I don’t hold the view myself. I’m open to it, but I just don’t hold it. But it used to be that I thought, well, that’s the Jehovah’s Witness view or that’s the Seventh-day Adventist view, and it is. and that was enough. That was enough to be off-putting. I don’t want to move from traditional Orthodox Christian views about this and find myself in the company of groups that I find to be fringe or cultic, and so I just kind of would not give it serious consideration until quite a few very important Christian evangelical scholars began to come out and say they believed it, and I started to read what they said, and hey, well, This may not just be a cultic view. This may be what the Bible teaches. So it’s a possibility. Once again, I can’t nail it down for you, but it sounds like you may not have heard my teaching on this subject, and it may help you if you want to go to my website, thenarrowpath.com, thenarrowpath.com, just like the name of the radio show, The Narrow Path. Once you go there, there’s a tab that says Topical Lectures, and you’ll find under that listing of Topical Lectures, two lectures together called Three Views of Hell. Three Views of Hell. If you listen to those lectures, of course, they’re free. They don’t cost anything. You will be able to kind of fill in some of the gaps in your familiarity with these views. If you really want to do a deep dive, my book, Why Hell? Three Christian Views, does that. It goes into a deep dive and really analyzes the three views. That book is called Why Hell? Three Christian Views, which you cannot buy from me, but you can buy from Amazon, Why Hell? Or just get the lectures for free at thenarrowpath.com under Topical Lectures. I need to take a break. I appreciate you being with me. We have another half hour coming. Yeah, thank you. Another half hour coming up. Our website’s thenarrowpath.com. I’ll take a break for about 30 seconds, and we’ll take another half hour together. Stay tuned.
SPEAKER 02 :
Everyone is welcome to call the narrow path and discuss areas of disagreement with the host, but if you do so, please state your disagreement succinctly at the beginning of your call and be prepared to present your scriptural arguments when asked by the host. Don’t be disappointed if you don’t have the last word or if your call is cut shorter than you prefer. Our desire is to get as many callers on the air during the short program, so please be considerate to others.
SPEAKER 05 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour. We have some lines open. It’s a good time to call if you want to get through. The lines can be reached at this number. If you have a question about the Bible or the Christian faith, or disagreement with the host, this is the number to call. 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And our next caller is today Robert in Norwalk, California. Robert, welcome to The Narrow Path. Hi, Steve. Steve, I was in my Sunday school class the other day, and…
SPEAKER 09 :
He took a poll among our class, and the question was, was Christ able to commit sin or not? And I’d like to have your vote on that topic. What’s your ideas on that?
SPEAKER 05 :
All right. Was Jesus able to commit sin or not? Well, the reason this is controversial is, on the one hand, we argue that he’s God in the flesh, and we know that God cannot be cannot sin and therefore many people have assumed that when god takes on human flesh uh he still this is still true of him he cannot sin uh the other thing is that of course the bible makes references to jesus being tempted to sin he was tempted three times in the wilderness by satan three of the gospels mention this uh it says in hebrews he was tempted in all ways like we are yet without sin now what’s interesting is james said that god cannot be tempted with evil Now, if the reason we say Jesus couldn’t sin is because the Bible says God can’t sin, then we’d have to say then Jesus can’t be tempted with sin either because it specifically says God can’t be tempted with sin, with evil. So there are things God can’t do, but Jesus could. Jesus could be tempted with evil. God cannot. Now, does that mean that Jesus could also sin even though God could not? Well, we don’t have that answer given directly. We know there’s other things that God can’t do, that Jesus could do, like get tired. The Bible says God does not become weary. He does not have to sleep. He never becomes tired. And yet Jesus got tired a lot of times. In some cases, he was so tired, he was asleep in a boat while it was filling up with water from the storm. He was quite sleepy. But Jesus was sleepy in his human form. as we get to be, even though God is not ever sleepy, means that we have to be careful about saying that just because something is true of God, it continues to be true even when God takes on a form of humanity. Now, some things are true of God, even when he takes on humanity. For example, he is love. He is righteous. He is holy. Uh, and there are people who are described that way too, as holy and righteous and so forth in scripture, not only Jesus. Now, holy people are righteous people. Uh, generally speaking, that means they don’t sin. It doesn’t mean they can’t. It just means, you know, that’s what they, they, they choose not to do. Now, is it possible? Was it possible for Jesus to succumb to temptation? It seems as if it would have been possible, but he didn’t. Uh, In the garden of Gethsemane, it says in Hebrews, he was striving against sin. I believe what it refers to is he’s striving against the temptation to bail. He’s asking the father, if it’s possible, let me get out of this. But he realized the father didn’t let him out of it. So he just became strong and resisted the temptation to get out of it. And it says he resisted unto blood in striving against sin. So it is possible. when you’re striving against temptation and sin, to resist. Jesus did it. In fact, in Hebrews, or excuse me, 2 Corinthians 5, it says that we can all do that if we have to. Or 10, I think. No, it’s 1 Corinthians 10. Anyway, the point is that we can overcome temptation. James said, resist the devil and he’ll flee from you. So it is possible to not sin. I mean, Jesus found that possible because he didn’t sin. We can even find that possible with his help, because if we walk in the spirit, we’ll not fulfill the lust of the flesh. So we can say this. It is possible for someone not to sin. And Jesus definitely showed that it was possible for someone not to sin. But to say that it’s possible not to sin doesn’t mean it’s impossible to sin. And, for example, take the temptation. Satan takes Jesus up to the pinnacle of the temple. and says, go ahead and jump. That was a temptation, apparently, because he knew that angels would protect him and so forth. But Jesus didn’t do it. But what if he had? Was it impossible for Jesus to just step off the edge there and jump? Could he do it? I think he could. He just didn’t. He was determined not to do that, and so he didn’t. But I don’t think there is anything about that particular temptation that That would have been impossible for the man Jesus to perform if he had chosen it. This is the thing. When we say, can a man do, let’s just say, a certain wicked thing, there’s two ways of looking at this. And one is, does he have the physical capacity to do it, on the one hand? And in many cases, almost all temptations are when we’re tempted to do things that we do have the physical capacity to do. So we can do it. And Jesus, I think, physically could have stepped off the pinnacle of the temple if he wanted to. He physically could have bowed down and worshipped Satan when Satan said, I’ll give you all the kingdoms of the world. He physically could. But there’s the other thing. If you say, could I strangle my wife in her sleep? Well, physically, I could probably strangle almost anyone in their sleep. It’s not impossible, but Could I bring myself to do it? Not in a thousand years. You know, there’s no way I could do that. Not because it’s an impossibility, but simply because it’s totally so much against my character and so much against my inclination, so much against who I am, that it’d be impossible for someone to make me do that. I would never do it, even at gunpoint, of course. So… In a sense, it’s impossible for me to do that, but it’s not really physically impossible. So we say, could Jesus sin? Well, it wasn’t physically impossible for him to sin. He could do it, but his character, his inclinations, his loyalty and love for his father made it really pretty much impossible to do. Now, the Bible does say that there is a war within each of us. I think this war was inside Jesus, too, when he became a man. that the flesh and the spirit are at war against each other. The flesh wants one thing, the spirit wants another. And Paul indicates that that’s, of course, the battle we all face. And I believe Jesus faced that battle, too. I think there were times when his flesh was tempted with various things to turn rocks into bread when he was starving to death, for example. His flesh would certainly be tempted. The Bible says he was tempted. Okay, so we can’t say he couldn’t be tempted. He was tempted. But… When you’re tempted, of course, you could technically sin if you chose to agree with the temptation. But if you’re determined not to, you can also not. And I think the reason God can’t sin is it goes totally against his character to do it. He has no desire or inclination to do it. And I think that’s why Jesus didn’t sin. Also, though, I think, unlike God, Jesus on earth… had the capacity to be weak, to succumb to tiredness, hunger, the flesh in various ways, but because of who he was. That was just something he didn’t want to do. And many Christians can, I’m sure, relate with this, although many Christians, I suppose, have greater struggles than others in some areas. But, you know, it’s… I’ve certainly known long periods of time, I’m not a perfect man, but I’ve known long periods of time where no sin that you would name would have any appeal to me. Not because I’m a perfect man, but because life is so much better without sin and because I’m so mindful of fearing God and things like that. I mean, yeah, I’ve sinned in my life, but I can certainly relate with somebody being so determined to live a holy life that they would say no. And there’s always that possibility to do. And I think Jesus availed of himself of that possibility when many times we don’t. So I don’t know how your Sunday School class would respond to that, but you can play this call if you want to and see what they think. Thanks for your call, Robert. Rayma in Detroit, Michigan. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi. Hi. Tonight’s question is about Psalm 119, verse 71. It’s good that I was afflicted, that I was under statues. Also, Proverbs 3.12, the Lord punishes whom he loves.
SPEAKER 05 :
Not punishes. He chastens whom he loves.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. Well, if you can determine or explain the difference. And then, with that being said, how would a Christian know if the devil is bothering them, if the Lord… as good that we are punished, and not punished for chastisement, as good that we’re afflicted, how would one know if the devil is afflicting a Christian?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, you know, actually it wouldn’t make any difference if we did know the devil is afflicting, because the devil can’t afflict us without God’s permission. We have the classic example of that in Job, where You know, Job was living a righteous life, and the devil was trying to get him to sin and wasn’t being very successful. And so he said to God, well, listen, you’ve put a hedge around him, so I can’t do anything to him. So no wonder he lives a good life. I’ve not been able to test him and tempt him and so forth. But you let me tempt him or test him, and you’ll see. He won’t do well. And so God said, okay. Go ahead. You can do this much and no more. Well, what happened then? Afflictions came on Job. This is the way the devil was testing him. This is the way the devil was tempting him. He took his family. He took his property. He took his livestock. He actually took away his health until Job had nothing left but his wife. And she wasn’t much of an encouragement to him. So, you know, he lost everything. That’s affliction. And it was the devil’s doing. But we are told that behind the scenes, the devil couldn’t touch him at all, except with the permission of God. And so Job was not mistaken when he said, the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Now, we know that the devil took his stuff away, but it’s not incorrect to say the Lord took it away because that’s what the Lord allowed to happen. It was part of God’s plan. you know, testing of Job. The instrument of that testing was Satan. But the one behind it who allowed it and could have prevented it, if he wished, was God. And so the devil, in a secondary sense, often ends up doing God’s will. The crucifixion of Jesus was done by demonically inspired, you know, chief priests and Pharisees and Romans and so forth. You know, the devil was involved in that, to be sure. But the Bible says that God, it pleased the Lord to bruise him. You know, God delivered him to them, it says. And so, you know, Jesus would not have suffered at all Even though the devil wanted to do stuff to him, there’s nothing he could have done to Jesus if God had not delivered him over. And you can see that in the cases where many people took up stones to stone Jesus earlier in his life. And it says it wasn’t his time yet, so he just walked through the crowd unhurt. You see, no matter how much someone wants to hurt you, whether it’s the devil or people around you, they can’t if God won’t let them. And if God does let them, You know that this is being allowed by a God who has your best interest at heart, who loves you more than you love yourself, loves you more than anyone does, and would not allow this if this wasn’t potentially for your good. So, in other words, when we say, well, it’s good I was afflicted, or even the psalmist also says in verse 75 of the same psalmist says, I know, O Lord, that your judgments are right, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me. That’s Psalm 119, verse 75, in addition to verse 71, which you quoted. It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I may learn your statutes. Also, earlier in verse 67, again, Psalm 119, verse 67, the writer says, Before I was afflicted, I went astray, but now I keep your word. Now, the affliction, no doubt, the instruments of his affliction were probably bad people, and very probably the devil inspired those bad people to do harm to him. But he says, yeah, but before that happened, I went astray. Now I keep your word. So the devil loses. You know, he may have done this, but he didn’t get what he wanted. Now I’m more obedient to you than I was before I was afflicted. It’s good for me that I was afflicted. I learned my lesson. You, God, have afflicted me, but you’ve done it in faithfulness because your judgments are right. These are the things the psalmist says, and it’s in keeping with the entire teaching of the Scripture on this subject. The devil may, in fact, come against you. We know the devil filled Judas to betray Jesus, and that led to that horrific death of Jesus on the cross. But it was also God’s plan. that Jesus would suffer that way, or else no one could have laid a finger on him. And, of course, what Jesus did as a result of his suffering and his resurrection, he was exalted to the highest heaven and given a kingdom above all kingdoms. So, I think for a day of suffering, or even 33 years of suffering, I think Jesus was worth it. For the last 2,000 years, he’s been reigning at the right hand of God, and will do so forever and ever after this. So, A time of suffering is short. Paul said that, too, in 2 Corinthians 4, where he said that our light affliction, which is but for a moment, works for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. That’s 2 Corinthians 4. I think it’s verse 16. It might be 17. And Romans 8.18 says, I’m persuaded. that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that should be revealed to us. So God has something really amazing in mind for us, and there’s no path there except through some difficult waters. And those afflictions test us and prepare us for greater things. That’s what the Bible says. Old and New Testament says the same thing. So, you know, who crucified Jesus? Well, certainly demonically inspired people. But when they came to arrest him, even though he had prayed that God would cause the cup to pass from him, that is the suffering to not happen. When they tried to defend Jesus from the guards, he told his disciples, the cup that my father has given me, shall I not take it? Shall I not drink it? In other words, this suffering that I asked to be delivered from, God has not chosen to deliver me from it this time. He wants me to drink it, so I’ll drink it. It’s submitting to the will of the Father. And certainly, I don’t think anybody has ever submitted fully to the will of God and later looked back and said, I shouldn’t have done that. That was a bad choice. So, you know, when you’re afflicted, God is doing something. He wants you to trust him. He wants you to love him. He wants you to say, I don’t know what’s going on here, like Job said. But it turned out really well for Job. It turned out well for Job. Joseph, who was sold into slavery and in prison in Egypt. Turned out well for him in the end. Turned out well for Jesus. You know, in fact, that’s certainly one of the themes of the Bible, is good people suffer, but it’s good for them in the end that they did.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right, Raymond, thanks for your call. Okay, let’s see. We’ve got James from Memphis, Tennessee next. Welcome, James. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes, thank you for taking my call, Steve. Steve, in the book of John, where John sees the spirit descending like a dove, how did we take that to be that the spirit took the shape of a dove? When we see that the dove is used for sacrifices… and the spirit, that would be the wrong picture of the spirit dying after sacrifice. Could it be that it was not the shape but the descent of the spirit coming down rather than the shape? In Romans, it refutes that casting images of God as a corruptible man and birds would include the pigeon, not the pigeon, the dove, four-footed beast, and creeping things.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, let me jump in here. The way it’s worded in John… You’re right. It doesn’t say that the Spirit took on the form of a dove. It says in verse 33 of John 1, he says, I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. So, you know, the Holy Spirit descended. It doesn’t say here that he looked like a dove. Although if we say, well, he descended like a dove, like a dove lands on something, so the Holy Spirit landed on Jesus. If it’s not talking about the visible form of that, it’s not entirely clear how John could see it. But more than that, if you look at Luke chapter 3, which also records the baptism of Jesus, it says in Luke 3.22, the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon him. So it wasn’t just that there’s some abstract way that the descent of the Holy Spirit is similar to doves descending when they land. I mean, I will allow that John’s gospel, if we had only that, might suggest that or could be maybe taken in that way. But. When we’re told that the Holy Spirit came down in bodily form as a dove, that’s different. Now, why a dove? I think doves are considered to be pure. That’s one reason they were sacrificed. But to say doves were sacrificed is not the only thing that can be said about them. Jesus said, be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves. Now, to say a dove is harmless is not making reference to it as a sacrificial victim. It’s just talking about their nature. You know, so other things, a dove conveys more things than just the idea of a sacrifice, though indeed they were included among the animals that could be sacrificed. But I think, you know, doves are often an image of peace in many cases and so forth. So I just, you know, I don’t know why, you know, the Holy Spirit took the form of a dove, but I do believe it took a bodily form. Just like, you know, God in the Old Testament took a bodily form. of a man and wrestled with Jacob all night and so forth. So this is, you know, kind of an unusual thing. But if we’re asking, was the dove, was the Holy Spirit physically in bodily form like a dove? I would have to say, yeah, that’s the language that’s used, at least in Luke. And so I would have to say that would be my take on it. All right. Let’s talk to John in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. John, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, thanks for taking my call. But I have two quick questions. The one is, if you disobeyed the word of God like 40, 50 years ago, and at that time you didn’t really know what was going on, is there God forgives you for that? Do you go on from there? From reading the Bible, I see where it says you don’t go into the promised land if you disobey the word of God.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, that was what happened to Moses when he disobeyed God’s command. But, you know, I have to say Moses was a special case. I mean, for example, he lived at the time when Israel was going to the Promised Land, and he was simply denied the right to lead them. That’s not exactly the same thing as saying you won’t go to heaven when you die. In fact, I believe Moses probably is in heaven now, you know. But when you say you committed a sin or disobeyed the word of God 40 or 50 years ago, the question would be, have you repented since then? Now, it sounds to me like you’re putting a scenario for it that a person later does come to Christ and later realizes they’ve done wrong. Well, coming to Christ would include repenting. Repenting means you’re really, really sorry that you sinned and you intend to not do that anymore. You know, you grieve over the fact that somebody was damaged, even if it was only God. But often when we sin, we sin against people as well. And it’s a grief to us when we are truly broken and repentant before God. It grieves us that we’ve hurt anybody, especially God. So, you know, that’s what conversion includes. So if you’ve come to Christ and confessed your sins, you’re forgiven of it. Now, I will say this. Some of the sins we may have committed before we were Christians, maybe the kinds of things that we really should and can still make right. You know, if I stole from somebody and I’ve just kept their goods all these years and 50 years later I realize I’m still hanging on to stuff I stole from somebody. Well, then if I repent, I’d have to go, I should give it back, obviously. You know, making restitution means that once you’ve repented, you certainly want to undo the damage that your sin did if you can. There are some sins you may have committed 40, 50 years ago that nothing could be done to change. In which case, I think Jesus says, go and sin no more. Be at peace. I forgive you. I don’t condemn you. But obviously, it depends on the kind of sin. There are certain kinds of sins which materially wrong another person. And once we repent, we not only are sorry that we wronged them, but we may be in the position to redress it, to undo the damage, to make restitution. And if we can, I think we should. Now, I don’t think we get saved by making restitution. I think we are saved by genuine repentance. But when someone is genuinely repentant, it means their heart has changed. And so making restitution is what they want to do. There’s a sense in which making every effort to pay back somebody that you’ve hurt wrong and to make restitution, the desire to do so is simply a mark that you are really repentant. And if there’s no interest in doing so, there’s some reason to question repentance. But when you do repent, as I said, there may be times when making restitution is simply impossible. You can’t undo the damage. Maybe the person’s even dead by now. 40, 50 years ago, if you did something, that person may not even be alive anymore. But, I mean, depending on the kind of sin, if it was a financial sin, you may make it good to their heirs, you know, to their estate or whatever. I would have to know more about the kind of sin we’re talking about, although I’m afraid we can’t get into that right now because we’re off the air in about one minute. But my position is that no matter how long ago you sinned or how recently, if you repent genuinely and you’re broken before God and you seek the mercy of God for it, he forgives the blood of Jesus Christ. It cleanses from all sin if we confess our sins, it says in 1 John 1.9. So I count on that. But I also would say if I have committed a sin and somehow I have never made any effort to undo the sin, let’s say at the very least to go and repent to the person that was injured and find out if there’s anything that I can do to fix it, then my repentance isn’t very deep. And if I’m repenting at all, I want to repent completely. It would be a shame to repent partly and then find out that God didn’t really see that. It’s a very real thing. You want to do the real thing and not a fake thing when you’re dealing with God. Anyway, I hope that may help you. I don’t know more about your circumstance, so I can’t say much more about it. But God bless you. Do what needs to be done. If you’re listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast, my name is Steve Gregg. We are listener-supported, and we pay a lot of money to radio stations in order to stay on the air. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, you can write to the Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com.
