In this enlightening episode of The Narrow Path, Steve Gregg engages listeners with questions about the Bible and Christian doctrine. We delve into the intriguing discussion of prophecies, both of the first and second coming of Christ. Steve challenges widely held beliefs while also exploring Bible resources that offer varied interpretations. A fascinating segment focuses on understanding our relationship with God through biblical metaphors such as slavery and sonship. Tune in to hear Steve address listener queries with thoughtful considerations and scriptural depth.
SPEAKER 01 :
Good afternoon, and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon, taking your calls if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, or you disagree with the host. Maybe you’re a Christian, and you disagree with something the host has said within the camp, and you’re welcome to balance a comment. If you’re not a Christian, you’re also welcome to call if you disagree with Christianity altogether. Now, right now our lines are full, so this is not the best time to call. But if you call in a few minutes, we have lines that will be opening up all through the hour. So take this number down. I’m suggesting a couple minutes or so from now. Go ahead and give a call, 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And we’ll talk first of all to Daryl calling from Sacramento, California. Daryl, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thank you, Steve. Could you suggest or recommend a book on prophecy that you turn along with your thinking?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, what aspect of prophecy?
SPEAKER 09 :
About Christ.
SPEAKER 01 :
Prophecies about Jesus? Yeah. Well, you’ll find that in a lot of books that cover that kind of thing. I know that the book Evidence That Demands a Verdict, which has been out for 50 years, has a section where it has a lot of fulfilled prophecies about Jesus. Now, you’re talking about prophecies about his first coming, right? You’re not talking about end-time prophecy, right?
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, I think there’s a combined one. I think I know the ones he came first time, but I’m not sure the second time.
SPEAKER 01 :
Oh, well, there’s not as many references to his second coming as there are to his first coming in prophecy, although there’s quite a few passages in the Old Testament that people think do apply to his second coming, which I think in many cases they’re misapplied there. But in the New Testament, certainly, you know, Acts 1.11, the angels say that Jesus will return in the same manner in which he left. That’s probably… one of the clearest prophecies of the second coming. There are allusions to it in Jesus’ own teaching. For example, Matthew 25, 31 through 46, Jesus is talking about when he comes and judges the world, he’ll divide the nations into the sheep and the goats and so forth. Paul, obviously, in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, actually all of 1 and 2 Thessalonians have a much… greater emphasis on the second coming than you’ll find in any of Paul’s other books. But 1 Thessalonians 4, the beginning of chapter 5 of 1 Thessalonians, 1 Thessalonians 2, I mean 2 Thessalonians 2, there’s a lot. Now, as far as books that have that information, I’m assuming there’s going to be a lot of books out there that have that kind of information. Books on Bible prophecy are almost endless. Many of them many of the books would probably inflate the number of prophecies that they would say are about the second coming because there’s a certain ilk of Christian teachers who kind of see the second coming of Jesus in all kinds of prophecies, whether they apply to that or not. I mean, there’s prophecies in the Old Testament about the destruction of Babylon or the destruction of Edom or something, and some will apply those prophecies. to the second coming of Christ when those really happened hundreds of years before Christ. And they’re not really about the second coming of Christ, but most of the ones that are are going to be found in the New Testament. Some people see Zechariah 14 and Zechariah, you know, well, basically 12 through 14 as, you know, about that. I don’t. A lot of these prophecies, I believe, the New Testament writers have identified for us. They’re Old Testament prophecies. And Christians often apply them to the second coming, but the New Testament writers themselves do not. The New Testament writers themselves actually apply them to something else that has been fulfilled since then. But anyway, I don’t know of one particular book. I know of lots of books that talk about it. In fact, once I was just not too long ago looking online for books about it, that, not because I need their help, because I actually disagree with these books in a lot of cases. But I just was curious to know what kinds of things people were these days pointing to as fulfillments of end times prophecy. And I found it, just going on Amazon, found lots of books about supposedly the signs of the times and so forth, which purport to connect Bible prophecy with modern times. I myself… I’m very familiar with all the prophets. I’ve taught through the Old Testament verse by verse, including all the prophets, more than 20 times. I’m aware of all the prophets in there. And I would say that I once thought there were a lot of things in there about the second coming. But, of course, once you study them in their context, you realize, no, that’s not… I had no good reason for saying that’s about the second coming. That’s really about something that happened since the prophets’ time and prior to ours. Anyway… I know I can’t recommend a particular book on that, but honestly, you just have to go to the booksellers and see what’s there. But I’m going to tell you, any book that’s about the signs of the times or about prophecy about the end times, there will be some prophecies that they identify that are indeed about the second coming of Christ. But they’re going to inflate that with a lot of prophecies that aren’t really about that. Just because… That’s just the trend. People who talk about the prophecies of the end times, they tend to just go wild, you know, with their listing and identification of prophecies that they would say are about that. So you have to look at every prophecy in its context and ask yourself, did this prophecy already, was it fulfilled after Jesus came the first time? And in many cases, that is the case. Or even before. Sometimes they’re fulfilled before Jesus came the first time. And they not only have nothing to do with the second coming of Christ, they’re not about the coming of Christ at all. They’re about some judgment of some nation in the Old Testament times. But prophecy teachers, for the sake of inflating the material that they want to apply to the end times, they typically will see them. They’ll see almost everything about the end times, even when it’s not. So, no, I’m sorry I don’t have a book for you about that. But I would suggest the Bible. Read the Bible about it. And if you have a hard time understanding the prophets, for example, as you go through the Bible, my own lectures on the subject are available free online. I verse by verse through all the prophets. It’s right there. And I do mention the prophecies, which some people would apply to the end times. And I point out, when necessary, what the real context would point to. So going to thenarrowpath.com, as I’m sure you have before, because you’ve been calling me for years, and going to the verse-by-verse lectures, which are numerous. You could go through any of the prophets, or all of them, and get a pretty thorough explanation of what those prophets are about. All right. Well, thanks for your call. Andy in San Diego, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hey, Steve. Happy Friday. Beautiful day in San Diego. Hank Hanegraaff had a phrase, Satan is a lion on a leash, the length of the leash determined by the Lord. What are your thoughts on that phrase from Hank Hanegraaff?
SPEAKER 01 :
I have no objection to it. I mean, basically what he’s saying is that it’s not as though the devil isn’t dangerous. I mean, a lion on a leash is dangerous if he can reach you. And that God determines how long his leash is, I mean, that’s a figurative way of talking. But basically what we see in the book of Job, in the first two chapters especially, is is that Satan is trying to do harm to Job. And I think Job is the quintessential godly man, which we might apply to ourselves also, hopefully, if we’re followers of Christ. And the devil wants to hurt him. He wants to kill him. He wants to harm him physically. He wants to take his family from him and his goods. And God lets him. up to a point. And one thing that’s very evident is that God determines exactly how much Satan will or will not be allowed to do to him. And so it’s very clear that Satan is not a free agent. From Job we see that God uses Satan to test his people. But God will not, as it says, Paul wrote to the Corinthians, that God does not allow us to be tempted beyond what we’re able to endure. So that He allows us to be tempted because that’s part of the program. Part of the program is that we’re tested to see if we’ll be loyal to God under temptation. But God would never allow us to be tempted beyond a place where he could, if we’re looking to him, that he would allow us to make it through successfully, as Job himself did, and as Jesus did, and as any Christian who’s walked with God has. for very long has at times. You know, certainly we succumb to temptation once in a while. But anyone who’s followed God for very long has also said no to a lot of temptations. And even the ones that we have fallen to, we have to say, you know, I didn’t have to fall. That was stupid. I could have not. I mean, I could have obeyed God. I could have looked to God for strength in a way beyond what I did. And so, I mean, I believe that the Bible is fairly explicit on the fact that, you know, the devil does tempt us or test us, but he doesn’t do so without God’s permission. But the permission God gives is limited to what God sees as ideal. That is ideal for the tempting situation, but not enough to crush us if we look to God. So, I mean, if Hank Hanegraaff calls that, you know, God determining the length of the leash that the lion is on, You know he could do that. I mean to say it that way is not I don’t think it’s conveying wrong information. I Guess that’s about much that I could say about that Yeah, no, that’s a great answer.
SPEAKER 10 :
I appreciate it Steve. I love listening to show. Thanks. Thanks for your sponsor.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, thanks for your call. Good talking to you Hank in Youngsville, North Carolina. Welcome to the narrow path Steve
SPEAKER 11 :
A week or so ago, someone asked you about a book which you said you just started reading.
SPEAKER 01 :
Uh-huh.
SPEAKER 11 :
It is a book called God, the Science, the Evidence, and Michelle Bellore and Oliver Bonassis.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 11 :
These guys, they’re very well informed, but they’ve got this old argument about the Jews returning to Israel.
SPEAKER 10 :
Right.
SPEAKER 11 :
They say the Jewish nation has a future miracle is awaiting the return of all Jews to Israel. Now, they present Romans 12, 25, and 26 as their main argument. But I’ve read your commentaries, and I’m sure they may have read that as well. They may be aware of it. But in your opinion, is there anything, any other argument that one could give to such
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, first of all, these two gentlemen are not what we call Bible scholars. I’m not saying they don’t know their Bibles. In all likelihood, they know their Bibles pretty well. But there’s lots of Christians who have been raised to believe that the return of the Jews to their land in the end times is something that was prophesied in Scripture. It’s like I was talking, and these two men apparently think that. I noticed that they do have that view also. And many people do. I mean, many people believe that the return of the Jews to their land in the modern era is a great proof of God and fulfillment of prophecy. Now, first of all, I think we’ve got abundant proof of God and fulfillment of prophecy without that in our arsenal. I think that their book would have been just fine without that. chapter without that whole idea because most of their evidence they give is scientific the first half of the book certainly is is the scientific evidence that has led many uh atheists and agnostic scientists to kind of get soft on their atheism or to or to become agnostic or even to believe in a creator god even if they don’t become religious uh and that’s i mean frankly Modern scientific discovery has led any open-minded person that way, if they know it, if they’ve studied it. And I’ve read the material that they have in this book. I’m looking at it right now. I have it on my desk. I’ve read that. You know, those things they bring up, I’ve read in many books over the years, but it’s a good compendium of, you know, the science of modern times that has led so many who were staunch atheists and scientists to eat their words, basically. There’s quite a lot of modern discoveries, especially, in the 20th century, the late 20th century, that have simply, you know, become a citadel of evidence for the belief in God. And even scientists who don’t want to be religious have had to admit this, many of them. I mean, they have one chapter is like 100 quotes from scientists. Some of them are believers, but most of them are atheists or agnostics who say, you know, the evidence does point that way. Now, they don’t need to have a chapter in there about the Jews coming back to their land. This is a view that many Christians hold. I mean, I’m not sure. I think these fellows are probably Catholic, the guys who edited this book. There’s like 20 different scientists involved in the making of this book, but the two editors, they’re French. It’s a French book. It’s interesting how many French scientists there are that I didn’t know existed that they appeal to. But it’s a very good book. But they also have a whole chapter about, you know, the Fatima revelations, which is a Roman Catholic kind of thing. So they’re probably Roman Catholic Christians, I’m assuming. But, of course, what they’re saying is true about most of this stuff. The part I’m not in agreement with is them pointing to the return of the Jews to their land, which, by the way, has not exactly happened in the way the Bible would predict, if it predicts it at all. There are predictions in the Bible about the Jews coming back to their land, but they were fulfilled. And the Bible says they were fulfilled. in about 539 B.C. when the Jews, many of them, thousands, tens of thousands, returned to the land from the Babylonian exile. And this was the fulfillment of all the prophecies in the Bible that mention it. Romans 11, 25, and 26, though it says something about Israel, it doesn’t say anything about them coming to their land. It doesn’t say anything about them that would encourage Zionism. It basically says all Israel will be saved. Now, I As you exit Romans 11, you’ll find that all Israel shall be saved is not necessarily saying that all the Jewish people on the planet will actually come to Christ. But even if they did, that still has nothing to do with their geography. Every person who’s a Jew on the planet could become a Christian. Then they’d be saved. But they wouldn’t have to move from where they live today. So it’s not a prediction about migration to the land of Israel. There is no prophecy in the Bible about a modern migration of Jews to Israel. All the predictions that predict that that will happen were written in the Old Testament, and then were subsequently fulfilled. I was talking to our first caller today about this kind of approach to prophecy, that there’s tons of prophecies that have been fulfilled a long time ago, and there’s a certain kind of Christian, many times they’re of a more sensationalist type, who will take those prophecies that were fulfilled 500 years before Christ and claim that those are being fulfilled today. And these prophecies about the return of Israel would be in that category. And so I disagree with these men in using that, although I will say this. If someone says, well, don’t you believe God has brought the Jews back to their land? My answer would be, well, there’s several aspects of my answer. One is they haven’t all come back to land. At least half of the Jews, if not more, still live in America and Europe and other places, and most of them don’t have any travel plans. They haven’t bought a plane ticket to go back to Israel. So Some Jews have returned to that land. This is not what was predicted. What was predicted and was fulfilled before the time of Christ was that the Jews in exile, the remnant of them, meaning a small number of them that are godly, would turn to God, would repent, would come with singing and weeping, weeping in repentance and singing and rejoicing in their salvation to Zion. which I believe has been fulfilled long ago, not in 1948, but back in the old days, centuries ago. And it happened. So, you know, I just don’t know. Frankly, the Jews who have come to Israel today are not repentant. They aren’t even believers for the most part. Most of the Jews in Israel are not believers in God. And only a tiny percentage are even practicing the Jewish religion. And very few have come to Christ. You know, not one in 200 of the Israeli Jews believes in Christ. So this is not what the Bible predicted. The Bible did predict that the Jews in exile would come to God, would repent, and as a result of that, Deuteronomy 30, verses 1 through 10 is very explicit about this, they will turn to God with their whole heart, and then they’ll be restored to their land. Now, that did happen. when Cyrus released the Jews from the Babylonian exile and the remnant under Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zerubbabel at different times did return from Babylon, did reestablish their land. That was 500 and some odd years before Christ. There’s nothing after that that predicts such a thing. And if someone says, well, there’s double fulfillment, this is the same thing again. No, it’s not, because the people in Israel are not believers. The Jews who returned in the days of Zerubbabel in 539 BC built a temple, the first thing they did. They built a temple so they could worship God because they were the historic Israel. The historic Israel was founded as a nation to worship Yahweh at Mount Sinai. They built a tabernacle initially. Later they had a temple. And that temple existed until they ceased to be a nation in AD 70 with a brief period of time that was broken down and then restored in the Babylonian era. So, The nation never existed as a nation in biblical times without a central shrine of worshiping Yahweh. There’s been three or four generations of Jews back in Israel since 1948. It’s been, what, 75 years or more. And they’ve never built a temple. They don’t worship God. They don’t even believe in God, most of them. So this is hardly anything that the prophets would have ever predicted. It’s not a fulfillment of prophecy. So I would say that in their… Their use of that is one of their proofs of God. I think it’s weak. I’m not sure that it’s valid at all. Thanks for your call. Barbara in Roseville, Michigan. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 05 :
Oh, hi, Steve. Thank you. I was wondering if you were familiar with Ecclesiastic chapter 11, verse 3, the latter part, where it talks about where the tree falleth, that’s where it lies. And I was always taught that that meant, you know, there’s no change after fall. After you go into the ground, after the grave, if you go down a life, you come up a life. I just wasn’t sure if you were familiar with that. Now, hang up and listen. Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay. Yeah. Thank you for your call. First of all, I’m not sure that’s what he’s saying there. The verse says, if the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth. If a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where the tree falls, there it shall lie. He who observes the wind will not sow. He who regards the clouds will not reap. There’s a lot of different principles here. This is like, you know, Ecclesiastes is like the book of Proverbs. It’s got individual statements that have some kind of application to life. And it’s not always clear what all their applications would be, in this case included. And I don’t think it’s talking about people, that when people die, they don’t change. Although, it would not be impossible for him to mean that. I just don’t see that as the obvious meaning, so I wouldn’t teach that that’s what he means. But let’s just say for the sake of argument that that is what he means. Let’s say he is saying that if you die, you’ll never change after that. Well, he’s not saying it very clearly, first of all. It’s a very obscure statement. Secondly… I don’t know that Solomon knew what happens to people after they die. God had not revealed anything about that in Old Testament times. There’s not really any discussion of life after death in the Old Testament. That was brought up in the news. So whatever Solomon’s observations were, the most he could see and know was that people do die. And he could speculate that they would never change. He actually speculated wrongly that they don’t know anything after they die. which is found in Ecclesiastes chapter 9 and verse 5. Ecclesiastes 9, 5, he says, For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing. And he says, And they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Well, that’s true of some people. There are some people who have been dead a long time, and the memory of them has not been forgotten. I’d say Alexander the Great is still remembered today. Obviously, Moses is still remembered. I mean, obviously, there’s millions of people who’ve died who are remembered by somebody. And hundreds, certainly, are remembered by most people. You know, Abraham Lincoln and so forth. So, it’s not really true that when a person dies, they’re not remembered and that they know nothing. Now, why would Solomon say that if it wasn’t true? Well, he was speculating. And more than that, as you read the book of Ecclesiastes, he’s made it very clear that that he’s relating to you his life after he departed from God and the way he was thinking at the time. And he’s kind of relating the philosophical notions that went through his head at that time. For example, in that statement, Ecclesiastes 9.5, the dead know nothing at all. People like Seventh-day Adventists and people who believe in soul sleep usually say, well, there it is. That’s what the Bible teaches. No, it’s not what the Bible teaches. That chapter begins with these words, for I considered all this in my heart. In other words, back when I was walking away from God, and he says that he was, He was seeking meaning and purpose for man under the sun, which is a term he uses frequently in the book of Ecclesiastes, under the sun. It means on the earthly level. It means not including heaven, not including God, but things under the sun. When he was seeking happiness, he talks about how he resorted to alcohol, to women, to philosophy, to horticulture, to parties, to all kinds of things. Lots of stuff. He was looking for something to make his life meaningful without including God. And the book of Ecclesiastes is sort of like his inspired confession of where he was at during those years. And many times he says, I thought this. I concluded this. And among the things he concluded were things that aren’t actually true and which a man would not conclude if he was aware of God in the way he should be. When a man has become a secularist and God is not in his reasoning, then he’ll have to come up with ideas, nonetheless, but without light, about what happens to people after they die. And one thing he said is that the dead don’t know anything. Well, I think the New Testament indicates that the dead do know things. And if he was saying where a tree falls, it won’t be moved from there, If he was saying, and I don’t think he was, but if he was saying that when people die, they don’t change ever again, nothing ever happens beyond that, well, I don’t think he knew what he was talking about. He’s just expressing the kinds of things that he thought about when he was not what we’d call a believer. Hey, I need to take a break, but we have another half hour coming, so don’t go away. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener-supported. We’ve got tons of resources at our website. They’re all free. Lots of lectures, like 1,500 lectures, all free at thenarrowpath.com. You can donate there if you want, but you don’t have to. Just use the website, thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. We have another half hour, so don’t go away.
SPEAKER 02 :
toward a radically Christian counterculture, as well as hundreds of other stimulating lectures, can be downloaded in MP3 format without charge from the Narrow Path website, www.thenarrowpath.com. There is no charge for anything at the Narrow Path website. Visit us and be amazed at all you’ve been missing. That web address, www.thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 01 :
Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour, taking your calls. Now, at the beginning of the program, I said the lines were full, so don’t call. Right now, we have some open lines, so this is a good time to call if you have questions. about the Bible or the Christian faith or a disagreement with the host you want to talk about, feel free to join us right now. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Mike from Cool, California. Hi, Mike. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good afternoon, Steve. Hope you’re having a blessed day.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 08 :
So, I had two questions, but one, boy, everyone seems to have questions about that book, God, the Science, and the Evidence. I was going to ask if you thought it was a good read, and it sounds to me like you do.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, I do. It’s about 500 and something pages long. It’s quite a thick book. It’s kind of large print, and there’s a lot of space between the lines, so it’s not a dense book in terms of reading. It even has pictures and stuff through it, so… You know, if a person’s not into reading technical books, it’s a little more, you know, easy on the eye and so forth for someone reading a big book. But it’s full of good information, and it’s well stated. It’s well presented.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I just finished reading your last book for the second time. It’s a long read, and it’s a great read. I absolutely loved it.
SPEAKER 01 :
Are you referring to Empire of the Risen Sun books?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, yeah, there was one book since then, but I think the Empire of the Risen Son book is the better one, the most important one.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, it’s a great book. Anyway, so I’ve had this thought in my head recently. How do you put together that through the Bible we’re called, we go from slaves of sin to slaves of God, but then we are called sons and daughters of God? The relationship… of a slave and the relationship of a son and daughter are two extremely different things. Now, I just thought if someone asked me this question, how am I going to explain it? So, I called you.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Well, of course, the main theme of the Bible, or certainly one of the main themes, probably the main theme, would be related to our relationships with God. Now, our relationship with God is a spiritual thing. And there’s supernatural aspects to it, like his spirit comes and regenerates us spiritually and things like that. And the Bible looks for analogies in human relationships to help us understand that. For example, a husband and wife is a relationship the Bible sometimes uses to describe the relationship of Israel to God or of the church to Christ. But it’s not the only analogy. There’s, of course, children of God, as you point out. Since we’re born again spiritually, to speak of us as children is reasonable. We have been included in God’s family. When the Bible speaks of us as slaves or servants, this is speaking of us more in terms of what our duties look like. And, by the way, when the Bible is written, And right up until fairly modern times, everybody in the world knew what a slave was. We don’t have any slaves in America, fortunately, not legally. But certainly slavery was legal in every part of the world for the first 6,000 years of history, pretty much. And so when it said we’re a slave of God, everyone knew what a slave was. Now, they knew that a slave was not a child in the family. But on the other hand, they knew that sometimes slaves were treated badly. like family members. And that was true even in the American South. Not always, but sometimes slaves were beloved of their masters, and they loved their masters, and they were like family members. But they still were slaves in the sense that they had the duty to serve. And when the Bible says we’re slaves of God, it’s not denying that we are God’s children. It’s just an emphasis on the fact that we have a role that includes serving God as our master. But in a sense, in biblical times, a child wasn’t much different than a slave in terms of their duties. I mean, a child to serve his father was not a very different analogy than a slave to serve his master. In fact, in Galatians 4, verse 1, Paul says, Now I say that the heir, that is the heir of a household like the child, as long as he is a child does not differ at all from a slave. though he is the master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the Father. Even so, we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world, but when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive adoption of sons. Now, Paul is saying, you know, we were servants already. But now, in the fullness of time, God has come to give us the spirit of sonship and made us sons. But he says, you know, in childhood, you know, a child’s relationship in the home to his parents isn’t very different than that of a slave to his master. I mean, parents were absolute authorities, and the children’s role was to do their parents’ bidding. So, you know, the analogy isn’t that different in biblical times. Now, also, the Bible talks about us being friends of God. Jesus said to his disciples in John 15, I don’t call you slaves anymore. I call you my friends because a slave doesn’t know what his master does. So some might say, oh, well, then we’re not servants or slaves anymore. We’re now friends. But we have to look at what he said in the verse before that. He says, you are my friends if you do whatever I command you to do. Okay, so his friends, it’s like he’s the king. That’s another relationship. We are his subjects. He’s our king. These are all human kind of institutions and relationships that the Bible employs to help us understand aspects of a very, you know, variegated relationship that we have spiritually with God. And we are his children. We are, in another sense, his friends. But, you know, a king, like David, for example, take King David. He had friends. And he had children, but they were just as subject to him as other subjects were. I mean, in other words, a man who’s a king can befriend some of his counselors or whatever, but they’re still his subjects. He can have children in his kingdom, but they’re still subject to him as he’s the king of the whole realm. So to speak of these different aspects of our relationship to God, They don’t contradict each other. They’re all true and they all give a different aspect of the whole picture. The picture being that God is the universal sovereign and we are subject to him. We are owned by him. We are to serve him. He has also gathered us into his family as children without canceling out the fact that we have to submit to him, but rather Underscoring it. And, you know, and he’s made friends of us, too. And so none of that changes the fact that he’s the king and he’s the Lord. And it’s funny because I once taught on the Lordship of Christ in a certain area. And a Christian after said, well, I prefer to think of Jesus as my friend, not my Lord. And I said, well, yeah, I understand that. But he said, you are my friends if you do everything I command you to do. So you go ahead and think of him as your friend. That’s not inappropriate. But realize that being his friend means you obey him. You do everything he commanded. So being a friend doesn’t change the fact that you’re his servant or his subject. So none of these things are mutually exclusive or contradictory to each other. They’re just, each one adds a little bit of color and aspect to our understanding of our relationship with God. Thank you for your call. All right, let’s talk to Joy in Southern California. Joy, welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi Steve. I have a, uh, I just wanted to see if I could get your opinion on something. Um, I have a, I have an aunt and we go visit her about once a year for Thanksgiving or something. And it’s always kind of difficult to go see her because she’s not a Christian and she’ll use the Lord’s name in vain quite a bit and stuff like that. And, uh, We don’t, you know, we love her. We like to spend time with her to some degree, but we feel like we have to suppress our Christianity around her. But anyway, every once in a while she’ll say something like, oh, well, make sure to save a room for me because I might have to come live with you someday. Now, am I wrong to feel like there’s no way I would want her to come live with me someday? Do you think as a Christian that’s completely a wrong mindset?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, you’d have to just – really, you’d have to just be led by what God leads you to do if such a thing occurs. I mean, does she have no children of her own?
SPEAKER 07 :
She does have children of her own, but it’s kind of – It would be their obligation. Yes, I think so too.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, if she became dependent on intensive care and needed someone to house her and so forth – that responsibility, according to the Bible, falls to her children or her grandchildren, if they’re in a position to do so and if they’re adults. As far as nieces and nephews or whatever, there’s no direct responsibility the Bible places on you because Paul, when he tells Timothy that the church, though the church supports widows, this is at the beginning of chapter 5 of 1 Timothy, Paul said that, you know, the church… should support widows if they are, as Paul puts it, widows indeed, meaning they really don’t have anyone else to take care of them. He says, but if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them take care of them and don’t burden the church with it. He said, but they should repay their parents. Now, what he’s saying is, you know, their parents raised them. Their parents brought them into the world. Their parents kept them alive and fed them and housed them and clothed them. met all their needs when they were helpless. And so you’re kind of indebted to your parents. And so when your parents may be needing someone to house and clothe and feed them, well, you’ve got a debt to pay. But that wouldn’t be true of your aunt unless she was necessarily raised you. I think Paul would be suggesting that what they invested into your life constitutes a debt that you owe them. But most people were not raised by their aunts. or uncles, but some might have been, in which case I would think a similar obligation may apply. But no, she can’t be the one to decide whether she lives with you. That would be up to you to decide, and whether it would be a detriment to your household or not. Now, of course, if you were her daughter or granddaughter, and you were the only person who could help her, Uh, you might look for ways that you could help her to live on her own. Uh, you know, uh, you know, bringing in help if she needed help, or you could take her into your house, but that would be something you, uh, your husband, your household would have to decide, uh, in consideration of what would God have us do. And that would not be based on the fact, well, she is my aunt after all, so I should take care of her. Um, The fact that she’s your aunt, if she did not raise you, doesn’t give her any special privileges, although it may cause her to be, you may have more emotional attachment to her because you grew up knowing her and she might have been nice to you and so forth. So, I mean, you’re going to have to decide your moral obligations when that time comes. But I don’t see why you would be obligated to take her in. If no one else would, you might choose to as an act of mercy and as a godly thing. But, you know, if you bring anyone into your house to live with you, you have every right to say, we are a Christian household here, and we don’t use the name Jesus that way. We don’t use the way you’re using it, you know, when you curse or whatever. Everyone under this roof is going to reverence Christ. And if they speak of him at all, they’ll speak of him respectfully. And, you know, you don’t have to live with us. But that’s what people who live with us are expected to do.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Do you have time for one more quick question?
SPEAKER 01 :
Maybe. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. Do you agree with this phrase, I am counting on Christ and Christ is counting on me?
SPEAKER 01 :
Yes. Yes. Within measure. I mean, a lot of people would say, well, Christ can’t count on us because we’re sinners, we’re unreliable, and so forth. Yeah, well, that’s not supposed to be the case. When we come to Christ, we’re supposed to be faithful. That means reliable, loyal. And faithfulness to Christ is part of what it means to be a Christian. So, you know, when two people make promises to each other, let’s say they make a contract or a couple make vows at their wedding or whatever, They’re both promising things, and they’re both supposed to be trusting the other person, too, or counting on the other person to keep their promises. Now, people can only be trusted so far, unfortunately. People are flawed. But we are still to live lives that are faithful. So married people, whether they’re Christians or not, but especially Christians, should keep their wedding vows. People who enter into a contract should keep their side of it. people who promise God that they’re going to be his followers and disciples, well, that’s something they should uphold. And there were no Christians in the early church that hadn’t made that commitment. That’s what becoming a Christian involved. I know we’ve watered it down to the point where all you have to do is say a prayer and say you believe Jesus is true and that kind of stuff and you’re a Christian. Yeah, that wasn’t the way that Christianity was looked at in the first century. In the first century, you were committed to death. You’re committed to be faithful unto death. And that’s the commitment you made when you were baptized. And, you know, we’ve got sort of a watered-down, wimpy kind of version of Christianity that we think of now. But I’m not sure that God honors it. Remember, Jesus said, Many will say to me in that day, Lord, we did many things in your name. He’ll say, I never knew you. So a lot of people think they’re Christians because… Christianity has been presented in a very diluted way. And what people have responded to, in some cases, is not necessarily historically what the early church recognizes as a true commitment to Christ. So if we want to have a true commitment to Christ, make sure we’re not among those that he says, I never knew you depart from me. we’re going to have to be committed in the way that Christians are supposed to be committed. And that means I’m faithful unto death. He’s my king. He’s my Lord. I’m faithful to him like I’m faithful to my spouse. And I am faithful to my spouse. So in a sense, God should be able to count on me. Now, God’s realistic. God knows that you’re weak. God knows our frame, that we’re but dust. He knows the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. But still, a person who’s a real Christian is expected to take that seriously. It’s not just, well, I got my fire insurance now because I went forward at an evangelistic meeting and said a prayer. Now I can just kind of do what I wanted to do anyway. No, you become a Christian, you’re loyal to God. You’re loyal to Christ. You’re a follower of Christ. And if somebody isn’t, then they’re not a Christian in any sense that the Bible would recognize. They would not be called a Christian in the first century if they’re not committed to Christ for life. Notwithstanding their foibles and their falls, James said in many things, we all stumble. We’re not perfect, but perfect or not, I’m not a perfect husband, but I’m committed to my wife for life and loyal. she, she’s pretty close to a perfect wife, but if whatever imperfection she may have doesn’t change the fact she’s committed to me for life. So that’s what it means. It doesn’t mean you’re perfect. It means you’re determined to be as perfect as you can be because you’re loyal. You have allegiance to Christ. Now, if you have allegiance to someone, they’re counting on you. Uh, It’s not like if you do something wrong, you know, God’s whole program falls to pieces and he’s just devastated and doesn’t know what to do with himself. He’s not counting on you to that degree because he knows not to entrust himself to men, it says in John chapter 2. It says God didn’t entrust himself to people because he knew what was in people. But he would like to be able to. He was trusting Job not to, you know, he allowed Satan to test Job because he knew that Job or trusted Job to be faithful. He expects us to. So to say that God’s counting on me, I would say, yeah, in some measure he is. He’s counting on me. That doesn’t mean that if I fail him, His whole project is just done. It doesn’t depend on me, but he’s depending on me to keep my promises and to be loyal just like your spouse. It depends on you to do the same. Keep your vows. Thanks, Joy. Good talking to you. Abram from Worcester, Massachusetts. Welcome.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good afternoon, Steve. Thank you very, very much for taking my call.
SPEAKER 01 :
Sure.
SPEAKER 03 :
Can you hear me now?
SPEAKER 01 :
Please continue.
SPEAKER 03 :
I’ve been listening. I’ve fallen in love with you ever since I’ve been listening. And in my mind, I don’t know if there are any pastors that are better than you. I’m sure there are. Okay.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
And every time I – I haven’t been listening for a very long time, but every time I listen, I have questions and just conversations with other folks and gender questions that I want to ask.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
So what I want to start with is King James. How did we get to King James from the original Bible? I don’t know if it was Aramaic Bible or how did we get King James? What was left out? Because we’re told that you cannot add or subtract from what the Bible is, but what is the Bible?
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay. Well, first of all, the Bible doesn’t say that nothing can be added or subtracted from the Bible. God did tell Moses and the people of Israel in Deuteronomy, don’t add anything or subtract anything from my commands. But that doesn’t mean that there would never be additional commands that God would give through, for example, Christ or the apostles. It just means don’t diminish things. obedience to anything God has said and Proverbs chapter 30 verses 5 and 6 says the same especially Proverbs 30 verse I guess it’s 5 and 6 it says do not add to his words lest he reprove you and you be found a liar now notice in Deuteronomy God said don’t add to my commandments and yet many books of the Bible were added after that in Proverbs written by Solomon he said don’t add to the words of God but all All the books of the prophets were written after that and the whole New Testament. So obviously when it says don’t add or subtract from God’s word, it doesn’t mean that nothing else will ever be part of the Bible. It just means don’t diminish them, don’t demean them, don’t ignore them, don’t add human traditions to them as the Pharisees did, for example, and Jesus rebuked them for that. It’s not saying there can’t be any more books of the Bible that God would write. Of course, we know the book of Revelation ends with a similar statement, but it’s referring specifically to the book of Revelation. Whoever adds to the words of this book, the plagues of this book will be added to them. Certainly the plagues of this book refers to the book of Revelation itself. But those statements are not meant to say there can’t be any other books written after that. In my opinion, John’s other works, his Gospels, And his epistles probably were written after Revelation. I think there’s evidence of that. But that’s not important. The point is, you say, where do we get our Bible? The Bible was written, the Old Testament in Hebrew and some of it in Aramaic. And then the New Testament was entirely written in Greek. And these books were written over a period of a long time, over a millennium and a half, from the books of Moses, the oldest books, to the books in the New Testament. There’s about 1,600 years there. There’s at least 40 authors. No one knows the exact number of authors because some of the books are anonymous. But there’s at least 40. And so it was a collection of books that grew. There were lots of other books that were written around the same time that are not in our Bible, and the reason is because they weren’t recognized as being written by inspired authors. Now, an inspired author is a prophet or an apostle. The Old Testament books were written by prophets. The New Testament books were written by apostles of Christ, and these had special authority to write as his agents, which you and I wouldn’t have. I mean, I’ve written several books. None of them have the authority of any book of the Bible because I’m not an apostle. I don’t have that kind of authority. I’m not a prophet either. So I’m not inspired. But the books that are and those that were recognized as such were kept. And so long before the King James Bible was translated, the Bible as we know it in Hebrew and Greek was collected in the early centuries of the church. Now it wasn’t translated very often. It was translated into Syriac And it was translated into Latin fairly early. But as far as into modern languages, it wasn’t really until about the Reformation or just before, in the days of Wycliffe and Tyndale, just about a century before Luther, that people began to translate the Bible into English of their time or other languages. Martin Luther translated into the German of his time and so forth. But the English version went through many stages because, well, some of the early versions were translated from the Latin instead of from the original languages. And so, you know, it existed in English, but it wasn’t a direct translation from the Greek and Hebrew. It was close, but it wasn’t direct. So later on, people made translations from the Greek and the Hebrew, respectively. And so, you know, by 1611, we had a version in English. that we call it the King James Version. And it was just a translation of the Greek and the Hebrew texts into the language of the time, essentially. And so that’s where that came from. Since that time, many other translations have been done into English, each one trying to basically modernize the English and make it a little more readable to modern readers. Hey, I need to take another call. We’re almost out of time here. Let’s talk to Christy in Little Rock, Arkansas. Christy, welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi. Thank you for taking my call. Over the Easter weekend, I heard a phrase of completed Jew, and I wondered if you had heard that phrase, and if you have, could you expound on it just a bit?
SPEAKER 01 :
Sure. Yeah, I used to hear that term in the 70s a lot. I don’t hear it very often anymore. Today it’s more common to speak of a Messianic Jew. A Messianic Jew is generally one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, which is another way of saying they’re Christians. They’re Christians of Jewish background. Back in the 70s, there were, like when the Jews for Jesus and some of these organizations were formed to evangelize Jews, probably a more common term they used if a Jewish person was converted to Christ was a completed Jew. Now, they could have been called a Messianic Jew back then. I don’t remember if that was common then, but it is common now to say Messianic Jew. Back then, the same person would have probably been called a completed Jew. And the reason for that, the reason for using the word completed, is because they would say, as a Jew… I held to a religion that anticipated a Messiah. The whole Old Testament anticipates, predicts a Messiah. And Jewish people, if they’re not converted to Christ, they only accept the Old Testament. But the Old Testament begins and ends predicting that a Messiah will come. But he didn’t come in the Old Testament times. And so Jews who only accept the Old Testament they have a religion that is incomplete. It’s got a gap where a Messiah belongs. And when these people find Christ, they feel like he fills that gap. He is the Messiah. And they are therefore completed Jews. We might say converted Jews, converted to Christianity, or more commonly today, Messianic Jews. But back in the 70s, it was very common for Jewish people who became Christians believers in Christ to be called completed Jews. So that’s what they mean. Their religion prior to Christ, their Jewish religion, was not complete. And it even was self-consciously not complete because it anticipates and was still looking for a Messiah that hadn’t come. And so when they found Christ as Messiah, their Messiah had come, and that gap was no longer there. I’m out of time for today’s program. I appreciate all the calls. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Our website has many resources, all of them free to you. You can also donate there if you want at thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
