The Narrow Path 09/21/2026

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we are live for an hour each weekday afternoon. We take your calls during this hour. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, you can call in, ask those questions, and we will talk about them and hopefully be able to answer them for you. If you don't agree with the host about something, that is about average. Most people don't agree with the host about everything, at least not about everything certainly. If you have a disagreement and you want to make a balanced comment, feel free to call. We welcome your calls and we'd be glad to talk to you about those things. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. Just one more reminder: we have a Michigan itinerary. I'll be speaking in Michigan at a lot of different places in the state of Michigan, in a lot of different cities. I'll be there for a week beginning October 1st. If you live in Michigan or want to come to those meetings, feel free to check our website, thenarrowpath.com, for information. You'll see under the tab that says Announcements all the places that I'll be speaking, when, where, and about what. So that's coming up a little over a week from now. We have quite a few lines open for some reason on our board. That's not very common. If you want to call, there's going to be a lot of opportunity immediately to get through. The number again is 844-484-5737. Our first caller today is David calling from Dallas, Texas. Hi, David. Welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
David: Hi, Steve. Thanks for the opportunity to ask the question. I have a question that I don't know if I could look to a specific verse for, so I was hoping you could help me with this. My wife and I have a son who got in trouble two weeks ago at school. He denied the allegations, but witnesses supposedly said that he smoked an e-cigarette in school with a friend. Long story short, he was adamant he didn't. The friend then also backed him up and said that he didn't do it at all. The one guy admitted to it and said, "Nicky didn't even touch it. He shouldn't be getting in trouble; only I should." It turns out we are now learning that he did do it. He's going to be home in about an hour. I'm very sad because this is more than just getting in trouble. He tripled down and lied to me and his mother. It shows more than just being bad; it's a heart issue. Lately, he's been very checked out in church, not even paying attention, just being a goofy teenager. One of my punishments that I told my wife I genuinely feel—and she agrees with me at this point—is a mercy thing as a father. Every night while he's grounded—which he's going to be grounded until we say otherwise, it might be months because of how mad we are about this and the fact that he tripled down on the lie—I want him to sit down and we're going to read the New Testament and talk about it. We're going to go back and forth, which on one side I think is amazing, but on the other side I'm conflicted. I don't want to force Jesus on him, but I don't think I'm doing that because it's like, "This is exactly what you need."
Steve Gregg: How old is he?
David: He is 15. He's a freshman in high school.
Steve Gregg: Does he have a smartphone?
David: He does, but now he doesn't.
Steve Gregg: Well, being grounded definitely would mean no smartphone for that period of time too.
David: Oh, yeah. He's grounded from all electronics and he can't see friends, and it could be a few months. This is going to be his harshest punishment.
Steve Gregg: Well, the one thing you are mindful of—and you've suggested this yourself—is you don't want Bible reading to be taken as a punishment because that casts it in a negative light. On the other hand, you have every right to say, "We're going to sit down as a family and read the Bible together." If he says, "You don't usually do that, you're just doing it to punish me," say, "No, we are grounding you to punish you. That is the punishment." "This is not punishment; this is training. It seems clear that if you don't fear God or if you can lie to us, your parents, there's been some slippage there. There's been some loss of integrity, and it's our duty not to let that happen. The command 'Honor your father and your mother' is a command that has a promise with it, and that is that it may go well with you all the days of your life." "We want things to go well with you. We don't want you to honor us because we're arrogant or egotistical or entitled. We're concerned about you. God has made it very clear that in order for things to go well for you, you need to honor your parents. As much as I might like to just let you go do your own thing, that's not an option I have. I have to help you." "I feel like maybe I've dropped the ball here a little bit, because what you're showing us is that we have failed to cement into you the things that every good man is going to need to have in his character. We know no better way to do that than to sit down as a family and read the Bible more together and talk about it. You can tell me what your problems are with the Bible. That's why we want to talk about it." "If you say, 'I don't see how this could be true' or 'I don't know why that would be right,' I want you to bring it up and talk to me about it." In other words, I wouldn't say, "Since you've been bad, you've got to read the Bible with me," because that will make it seem like reading the Bible is a bad thing, a punishment. But you can say, "This is, if anything, a penalty we are paying. We need to spend more of our time making sure we instill in you a knowledge of the things that you need to know to be a man who will do well and to help you learn to honor your parents so that it will go well with you." It's interesting. I remember one of my kids years ago was pretty rebellious. He was a young man and my wife, Dana, went for a walk with him. She was talking to him and at some point she said, "You know, parents don't want anything as much as they want their kids' happiness." My son, who was a teenager at the time or maybe in his early 20s, it was like a light went on. He had no idea. He said, "Really?" They don't have kids themselves, so that's why young people need to grow up and have kids. Once they have kids, they realize how parents feel about their children. They don't know that otherwise. What you need to communicate is, "We're not just—our ego isn't bruised because you lied to us. We're concerned that we have failed to do some of the things that we should be doing for you, and that is making sure that you own your own relationship with God." "This is something we've worked on, but apparently we need to work on it more. So while you are grounded, we want to do this, but even maybe when you're not grounded anymore." In other words, this is totally independent of punishment. Maybe we should just do this regularly all the time as long as you live with us. It might turn out to be a really good thing. I appreciate your call. My wife handed me a note about when her son, at one point when he was a teenager, lied to her. She wanted to teach him a lesson, so she got a piece of pottery, I think it was, from the house that was a decoration in the house. She went out on the driveway with it, had him go out there with her, and she said, "You know, when you do that, it breaks trust." She had him drop this pottery on the ground and shatter it. She said, "Now see how that's broken? How could we put that back together? It's much easier to break it than it is to restore it." The funny thing is, years later, he remembered that as her being really angry, which she says she wasn't angry at all. She was just trying to make an object lesson. Jeremiah did the same thing. He took a pot and broke it in front of the people of Israel saying, "This is how Jerusalem will be broken." Slightly different lesson. Anyway, getting those things across to your kids, it's amazing how they don't know that intuitively. You grew up in a slightly more biblically literate era, and I grew up in a much more biblically literate era. As the generations become more and more illiterate biblically, we can't assume that they know some basic stuff that seems obvious to us. So anyway, it's good to do what you're going to do, I think. I think you're going to do the right thing here. I appreciate your call. By the way, we're going to talk next to Myrna in Worcester, Massachusetts, but we still have quite a few lines open. If you want to get through, this is your opportunity. The number is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. Myrna, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Myrna: Hi, Steve. Interesting you mentioned Jeremiah; that's my question. It's in Jeremiah chapter 3, verses 8 through 14. He's basically saying that because they were backsliding, Israel, they committed adultery, and that He gave them a certificate of divorce. So He gave them a certificate of divorce. I don't think that included Judah, because then it says the treacherous sister, Judah, did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. It doesn't say Him giving them, Judah, a certificate. Then at the bottom here, on 14, it says, "Return, O backsliding children," says the Lord, "for I am married to you." It's a little bit confusing for me because He said He gave them a certificate of divorce, and then at the bottom here, He says that He's married to them to come back.
Steve Gregg: Well, you know how He begins that chapter is by mentioning that the law in Deuteronomy says if a man divorces his wife and she marries another, he can't take her back again. That's how He starts this chapter. "They say if a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's, may he return to her again? Would that land not be greatly polluted?" Now, that's He's quoting from Deuteronomy 24, verses 1 through 4, which is the law. A man who divorced his wife, if she married someone else, he could not take her back. But He says, "But you have played the harlot with many lovers; yet return to Me," says the Lord. Now, technically He's not saying she's married another, which might mean that she's in danger of marrying another and getting to the point where He could never take her back. But she's not there yet, so come back while there's a chance. Or He might be saying, "I'll even violate My own rule here. If I've divorced you, I'll take you back even if you've been with others." In any case, it is Israel, the northern kingdom, which was now defunct 100 years or more earlier, almost 150 years earlier. Israel had been taken by the Assyrians and didn't exist anymore. It is that nation probably He's referring to because He is distinguishing it from Judah in verse 8. He says, "Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister, Judah, did not fear, but went and played the harlot also." So He's saying Judah is making the same mistake that Israel made and is courting the same disaster as Israel experienced. But He's saying it's the northern kingdom of Israel, not Judah, that received divorce papers from God. But in verse 12, He says, "Return, backsliding Israel," says the Lord, "and I will not cause My anger to fall on you." Then of course in verse 14, "Return, O backsliding children," says the Lord, "for I am married to you." Now, it's possible that now that the nation of Israel is gone and only Judah remains, that Israel just refers to Judah. That was the case after the fall of the northern kingdom sometimes, because there was now only one kingdom existing, and it was made up of Judah and remnants from other tribes who lived there too. That southern kingdom was now called Israel. So it's not clear whether He's saying to the northern kingdom or to the Jews scattered throughout the world by the Assyrians, "You can still come back to Me." No doubt He means individually. He's not going to ever restore the northern kingdom as a kingdom separate again, but the individuals of it could still come back to God, and He may be calling them to do that. Or He may be just referring now to Judah as Israel because it's very clear that in verse 14 He says, "I am married to you," which would be Judah. My thought is that He's probably saying even though He scattered Israel and gave her a certificate of divorce, He's merciful and will take people back if they come back to Him. But having done that to the northern kingdom, I think in verse 14 He's addressing Judah because He's still married to them. He hasn't divorced them yet. He's saying, "You're on the same path your sister was. Return, O backsliding children," in verse 14, "for I am married to you." "I will take you one from a city and two from a family and I will bring you to Zion," which is Jerusalem, of course, in the southern kingdom. "And I will give you shepherds according to My heart." In my opinion, that verse 15 is actually fulfilled in the New Covenant. But nonetheless, I think He's saying it's the northern kingdom that's been divorced. The southern kingdom has not yet been divorced, but they're in danger of it, so they need to return. He might be saying in the earlier verses, in verse 12, that even those of the northern kingdom who may hear this appeal may themselves be saved also. They can come back to God too, though they would probably have to go back to Judah. Many people from the northern tribes did over the years migrate to Judah and became part of Judah before the northern kingdom fell. He might be saying those of you who are the victims of that disaster, the northern kingdom falling, if you wish, you can come back to Judah. But Judah's going to have to repent too because they're on the same path to destruction that Israel followed.
Myrna: Okay. Do I have time for another question?
Steve Gregg: I suppose. Go ahead.
Myrna: It's in Matthew 5, verses 17 through 20. He's talking about the law here. He says, "Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Then He says, "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Is He talking about Christians there? Then He says, "But whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." So He's addressing Christians here. Then He says, "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." But I thought people were in the kingdom of heaven who are believers. Then at the bottom, He says you will not enter and I'm a little confused.
Steve Gregg: Well, He's talking to His fledgling disciples. He's just called them to Himself fairly recently and He's giving them basic instructions in this Sermon on the Mount here. So they don't know how He's going to be different than the scribes and Pharisees or than the rabbis that they've sat under all their lives as Jews. He's saying, "You may get the impression that I've come to destroy the law and the prophets." Why would they get that impression? Because He was loose about Sabbath keeping. He let people who have issues of blood touch Him, which under the law would make you unclean, but He didn't subject Himself to separation and isolation as an unclean person. He even touched lepers and dead bodies, which might seem like He was ignoring the law and the prophets. He says, "Yeah, you may think I've come to destroy the law and the prophets." "I didn't come to destroy them; I did come to do away with them, that is to fulfill them." Once they've been fulfilled—in other words, let's just say there's a prophecy that says that David's offspring will be the Messiah. Jesus came to be the Messiah, so He fulfilled it. That doesn't end it because that's a permanent thing. But let's just say the prophet said that God would gather His people back from all the lands He'd scattered them to, and then He did it. Well, okay, once He's done it, if He doesn't say He's going to do it again, then there's no reason to expect it again. When a prophecy's been fulfilled, it's served its purpose. And the law too. Now, I believe that the law and the prophets that He's referring to is the whole Torah, but I think especially that part which distinguished the Jews from the Gentiles, which is the ceremonial laws. Jesus still taught moral behavior, just as the law taught moral behavior. But He's not putting them under the law; they're coming under Him. The law was their schoolmaster, and when He fulfills it, there's no more need to be under the schoolmaster, Paul said in Galatians. So He's bringing an end to the law as they've known it, but not destroying it, by fulfilling it. I usually liken it to when a little boy becomes a man. The little boy hasn't been destroyed; he's come to his anticipated end; he's become a man. When there's a little boy, you expect a man someday to be where that boy is, instead of a boy. Sure enough, if all goes well, he will be a man. When he's a man, there's no boy anymore. The boy's gone, but he wasn't destroyed. He's been fulfilled; he's reached his destiny. It's like the law. The law anticipated what Jesus was bringing and predicted it, and the prophets did too. Now, when He brings them, mission accomplished; it's done. You don't need the law and the prophets to predict those things anymore. But they haven't been destroyed; they've been fulfilled, like a child becoming an adult. Paul even used that example in Galatians when he said that when we were children, we were under schoolmasters and tutors—he means under the law. But when faith came, that's when you grow and you're not under a schoolmaster anymore. So fulfilling the law brings an end to its role in our life because it's been replaced by the adult version, which is Christ and His teaching. Now, when He says if anyone teaches people to break the law, then they'll be the least in the kingdom. Now, I believe that Jesus' disciples, for example, who were following Him, were in the kingdom. He's the king and they were His subjects. But He said there's ways to make Me proud and there's ways to not make Me proud, to be great in the kingdom and to be not so great in the kingdom. We can see that anytime we go to church. There's people who no doubt are true believers, but some of them are following Jesus like crazy and some are not. Not everyone in the kingdom is equally zealous or equally obedient. But the thing is, He's saying if you teach people to break the law and you break the law, even the little bit of it, you're not a good member of My kingdom. Now, what He means by that is, "I told you I'm not here to destroy the law and I haven't destroyed it yet. It'll not be passing until it's fulfilled." And it was not yet fulfilled. It was fulfilled, actually, we believe, in Jesus' death and resurrection and ascension into heaven and His enthronement. That is the fulfillment I believe that He came to do and did. But that hadn't happened yet. In fact, it was still a few years away. So those who were following him needed to know, "Okay, so do we ignore the law now?" I mean, they were following Jesus now. They didn't know how long it'd be before He was gone or even that He was going to be leaving. All they knew was now that they're following Jesus, they needed to know what's expected. He said what's expected until the law is fulfilled is that you keep the law. That's why a little later He said, "When you bring your sacrifice to the altar, if you there remember your brother has something against you, leave your sacrifice there, go and make peace with your brother, and then come back and offer." He's talking about in the temple, offering animals. Of course, once Jesus fulfilled the law, there would be no need for that. But you see, He hadn't fulfilled it yet. He said it won't be—not any of it'll pass until it's fulfilled. But I'm here to fulfill it. Sure enough, He did fulfill it, but not at that moment. In the years between this sermon and the time that the law was fulfilled, He's making it clear, "I'm not giving you permission to ignore the law. You're still under the law. The new system has not come yet, so you're under the old." "So anyone who says, 'Oh, we don't have to keep the law,' they're not representing My kingdom properly," He's saying. He's simply saying that as long as they are under the law and they're His followers, He expects them to be obedient to the law. That's all I think He's saying there. I don't think He's saying anything more or less than that. All right, I appreciate your call, Myrna. We'll talk next to Julie in Seattle, Washington. Hi, Julie. Welcome to the Narrow Path.
Julie: Hi. I have a Christian living question. I'll give you a little context and then my question. I've been unemployed three years, three months. I'm 55, I'm on my own, I've been living off my savings. I went to school for a year to learn something else; I still can't find a job. My sister owns a condo and she's not a believer, but she says, "I feel like I need to keep this in the family." So my question is, she's saying I can move in there without paying any rent until I get a job, with the understanding that I'll get a job and there's more economic opportunities where she's at. My question is, how do you know if you're stepping out in faith and it's a God thing, or if you're having wishful thinking that things will get better and you're being irresponsible?
Steve Gregg: Okay, listen, the music is playing, which means I have to take a break. It's a short break. I'm going to keep you online. I'm going to put you on hold and we'll come back to that question in about a minute and 30 seconds. So please hang in there and we'll get back to you. You're listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. We're only half way through the broadcast, but at this point we always like people to know that we are a listener supported ministry. You may have noticed you didn't hear any commercials. We don't sell anything and neither does anyone else on this program. If there's commercials on this program, they don't belong there and some radio station needs to be contacted about it. But the thing is, we are listener supported. If you'd like to help us stay on the air, you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com, and there's a tab there that tells you how you can donate and we will stay on the air that way. I will be back in 30 seconds, so don't go away. Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we are live for another half hour. Our lines are now full, so I won't give out the phone number again yet. You can just listen in to other people's questions, which would include Julie from Seattle. Now before the break, Julie was able to get her question out but we didn't have time to answer, so we'll go back to it. Julie, let me summarize and you can just tell me if I've got it right. You've been out of a job for a while and you're living off your savings. If I recall, it's your sister has a condo and has offered to let you live with her rent-free until you can get a job. Is that correct?
Julie: Yes.
Steve Gregg: And you're wondering if that's a good thing for you to do, or are you wondering if that's maybe not trusting God? Is that what you're saying?
Julie: I'm wondering how you know if you're stepping out in faith and it's a God thing, or if I'm just having wishful thinking that things will get better and it's irresponsible for me to do a thing like that because I don't have a job yet.
Steve Gregg: Right. You're going to have to have some provision obviously, and getting a job is the most ideal case, unless God has something else for you to do. I just wondered if living with your sister is what you're wondering about, or if looking for a job is what you're wondering about. Could I ask how old you are?
Julie: I'm 55.
Steve Gregg: 55, okay. So you're young enough to still work a lot if you want to and if God wants you to. What skills do you have?
Julie: I used to work in IT, but there aren't any IT jobs, so I studied healthcare and I'm trying to be a coder or biller.
Steve Gregg: Okay, so you should be employable. Anyway, I would say that your sister making that offer to you is the provision of God. When you're trusting God, you don't turn down the offers that He sends your way unless there's a good reason not to. Now, if you feel like your sister can't really afford to have you there or that you'd be a burden on her or something, there might be a reason to think twice about it. But if it's not a problem to her for you to stay there and she's offering it, I'd say praise God; He opened a door that you needed to have opened. But I would also think that you'd probably make it your full-time job to seek a full-time job so that you don't end up being a mooch. I know that you don't want to be a mooch, but it's easy when someone else is taking care of the bills for you to kind of get lazy. Not that you would; I'm not saying you're lazy, it's just human nature. So I just think God has opened a door for you when another closed. You've been out of a job; that's a closed door. You haven't seen any other doors open right away; now this one opened and I'd say that looks like the way. That looks like what God's leading you to do at this point. Now, when you do move in with her, I would soon assess whether it's to her advantage for you to be there or whether she's just doing it to be merciful. If you're a blessing to her being there, she might like you to be there long-term even if you had a job. If not, then you definitely want to be sensitive to the fact that you could be a burden to her and that you really need to be looking for a full-time, a regular place. But if you and she have a good relationship, she might love to have you there. Is she a married woman?
Julie: Yes, she is.
Steve Gregg: Okay. So but her children are grown or does she have children there?
Julie: No children. And it wouldn't be with her; she owns the condo next door to her condo.
Steve Gregg: I see. Okay, so you'd have your own condo. Oh, that's great. Okay. So what's the concern here? You said is this stepping out in faith. To me, it'd be obvious that if I was in need of a place to stay and somebody said, "Hey, I've got a condo you can stay here," that'd be, "Oh, okay, that seems like God's provision," unless there were some reasons to have misgivings about it, which there could be in some cases.
Julie: Well, I was just concerned. I'm thinking of the Bible verse: if you don't work, you don't eat. It just feels really strange to be moving into some place that you're not paying for.
Steve Gregg: It does feel that way exactly, but the other option is what? Sleep on the curb?
Julie: It's to continue to be unemployed. The area she lives in, there's way more job opportunities.
Steve Gregg: Yeah, well, you know, even if you pitched a tent down on Skid Row—you're in Seattle, there's a lot of tent cities there on the streets, I've seen them many times—you wouldn't be able to get a job because you couldn't take a shower and couldn't wear clean clothes and stuff. So I'd say God's opened up a better situation for you than that. Don't feel guilty about it if she's offering it, but also be mindful of the fact that you should do whatever you can to cease to be a burden. In the meantime, praise God for it. That's what I'd say.
Julie: Okay. Thanks for your opinion. Appreciate it.
Steve Gregg: Okay, Julie. God bless. All right, let's talk to Michael in Inglewood, California. Hi, Michael. Welcome.
Michael: Hey. Well, Steve, I just wanted to say I like to plan my day around your show. At 2:00, I'm not going to plan my dentist appointments or anything. Your first caller, I actually went through that this morning with my son. I don't want it to feel like a punishment reading the Bible. And then also, I lost my job; I talked about that a little while ago. I'm trying to get into IT and I live with my sister, so it's just funny the things that were said. But I'm calling because at my church it'll be like, you have to be baptized and repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and you will be saved, but also and speak in tongues as an initial evidence. I'm like, they added that; it doesn't say that although it says the other things. My question is this: in Romans—sorry, Acts 2:21, they'll say, "What must we do?" or later on with Paul and Silas they say, "What must we do to be saved?" They just say, "Call upon the name of the Lord," but Acts 2:38 says what it says there. So I'm like, wouldn't that kind of make it seem like there's not really one way, it's hard to say there's one way to actually be saved?
Steve Gregg: Well, there is only one way to be saved and that is to become a follower of Christ. Now, how you get there from where you are may have to be laid out in steps at times. These Jews who had called for Christ's crucifixion and now they realize that Jesus was the Messiah and they were cut to the heart, now they believed. They believed the gospel. What do they need to do after believing? He said, "Repent every one of you and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Now, that's laying out several different aspects of what has to happen. Now, sometimes all those things will happen to someone when they're not even aware that they've done all those things. Some people repent without knowing the meaning of the word "repent." They believe and they feel sorry for their sins and they now want to follow Christ, and no one ever told them the word "repent," but they did it anyway, at least that's the reality in their lives. They receive the Spirit perhaps without even asking. These things are all things that have to do with getting saved. How many of them have to be spelled out for people depends on how much those people know or have experienced without it being spelled out. When the disciples left their fishing nets to follow Jesus, He didn't really give them any commands except to follow Him, but they did leave behind their old life, which is repenting. They did believe. I don't know if they were aware that they believed, if they thought, "Wow, I believe this," or if they just did believe. That is to say, you don't have to say it all if what you do say ends up with them doing the right thing. The right thing is you're giving up your old mastery of your own life and putting Jesus in that place. If you don't know better, you should be told to be baptized. You should be told to repent if they haven't done that. Receiving the Holy Spirit, that often happens automatically whenever someone repents, but sometimes it may not. Like in the case of Cornelius, people got baptized in the Spirit before they were baptized in water. But in Philip's ministry in Samaria, they got baptized in water and didn't get baptized in the Spirit until Peter and John came down later and laid hands on them. So I think when we try to boil it down to a formula—take these three steps or these four steps and you're in—it may be that there are discrete steps like that that one goes through when they get saved. But some of those things they just do that without even being mindful that they're doing so. The person who decides when he hears that Jesus is King and Jesus is Lord says, "Wow, if God has said that Jesus is King and Lord, then I want to follow Him." Well, they've jumped through all those steps except for baptism I suppose at that point. So it's not like there's conflicting ways to get saved. The way you become saved is you become a follower of Jesus. Depending on where you're at when you first learn of this and make that decision, people may have to point out to you steps for you to take, unless you—frankly, some people could take those steps instantly. Although usually people will need to be told to be baptized because that's not something anyone knows instinctively. All those things are part of conversion, but conversion sometimes happens before people hear those words, like again, the house of Cornelius. Peter was preaching but he hadn't mentioned conversion, he hadn't mentioned repentance, he hadn't mentioned any of those things yet and suddenly they got filled with the Spirit because they obviously believed and apparently repented, but we don't read of those steps they went through. And when Paul and Silas said to the Philippian jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved," they didn't mention repenting, they didn't mention being baptized. But he took them home and they baptized him. He probably got filled with the Spirit too; we don't read all the things that happened. We are reading abbreviated accounts of things that—in their case, they were with them all night. He fed them, washed their wounds, they baptized him, his whole family got saved. We read of all that in like one verse. So I wouldn't try to reduce it to formulas. Salvation isn't that you've submitted to a formula; salvation is that you have a relationship with Christ that is defined by your loyalty and obedience to Him. And yeah, we do go through steps to get there, but some of those steps we can leap over rather quickly in one action. I'm not sure what the problem is. Now, the church you go to says you need to speak in tongues. Obviously, you're smart enough to know the Bible doesn't say that, even in the passage they use. They use Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." And they just assume receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit means speaking in tongues, but that's an assumption the Bible does not support. Okay, thanks, Steve. All right, bro. Thanks for your call. Hope you find a job. I know you're trying to start a church, too. You said that before, so hope you're successful if that's God's will for you. All right, let's talk to John in Springfield, Massachusetts. Welcome to the Narrow Path, John.
John: Steve, I was reading this weekend about the word "doulos," and it said that many English translations of the New Testament mistranslate "doulos," which means slave, and substitute the word "servant" or "bondservant." So my question is, what language did Paul write his epistles in and in what language did the epistles, the letters, come to us?
Steve Gregg: All of Paul's epistles, and as far as we know, all the New Testament books, were written in Greek. Now, Matthew could be one exception and Hebrews might be another, but I think not. But Matthew wrote an Aramaic or Hebrew version of the sayings of Jesus before his gospel was written as we have it. Most scholars believe that that Hebrew or Aramaic version, which has now been lost but the church fathers were aware of it, was maybe slightly different than the Greek version we have. It may have only been a list of the sayings of Jesus; we don't know for sure. But that's the only part of the New Testament that we know any author wrote in any language other than Greek. I said maybe Hebrews because there have been theorists like Clement of Alexandria who thought that maybe Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. The reason for that is because the ideas in it are Paul's ideas, but the Greek style resembles Luke's style in Luke and Acts, which is some of the best Greek in the New Testament, the most literate Greek in the New Testament, and Hebrews is like that too. So one theory was that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and Luke translated it into Greek, but that doesn't really work because there's a play on words in Hebrews where the word "covenant," which in Greek can mean a will—like a will and testament, a dying man's will—the same word in the Greek can mean a covenant or a will. But that's not true in Hebrew. Now, the writer of Hebrews makes a play on words about when God made a New Covenant, the Old Covenant it says a covenant isn't effective until the death of the testator, so he's referring to it like a will. That works in Greek; it wouldn't work in Hebrew. So Paul couldn't have written that in Hebrew. In your ministry, have you covered that problem of the translations shying away from the word "slave" and replacing it with "servant" in the New Testament? Well, I mean, I'm not sure if they're shying away from it. I mean, bondservant is a slave too, in a sense, at least until he's offered his freedom. Yeah, I think it may be that modern translations have shied away from the word "slave" because of the negativity associated with slavery. But then there wasn't that negativity in 1611 when the King James was made. That was even before Wilberforce or those guys were complaining about slavery. And yet they didn't use the word "slave" there either; I think it used the word "servant" there. I don't know; I'm not sure why they chose that. Maybe they were squeamish about the word "slave," but you're right, doulos does mean slave. The word for servant is "diakonos," which we get our English word "deacon" from. So a regular servant is a diakonos and then a slave would be a doulos. But yeah, I can't tell you why the translators made the choices they did. But you're right, the apostles refer to themselves as slaves of Jesus Christ in the opening of their epistles. And that's insightful. Did you read by any chance John MacArthur's book, "Slave"? They've just published a very concise short booklet called "Slaves of Christ." Okay. Well, John MacArthur had a whole book by that called "Slave," which was quite good. I read it some years ago. Yeah. Anyway, yeah, I can't answer for the translators. I do need to answer some more callers though. Thank you. All right, brother. Thanks for your call. All right, let's talk to Bill in San Ramon, California. Welcome to the Narrow Path, Bill.
Bill: Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. I had a couple questions. The first one was Romans 11, the partial hardening of Israel, verses 25-26, "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and in this way all Israel will be saved." I've heard your take on that and it sounds right. I was just wondering if there was a possibility that those two Israels could sort of be merged, the ethnic and the righteous remnant.
Steve Gregg: Well, they can be merged by every Jew becoming part of the righteous remnant. I mean, God will never mix clean with unclean. So Jews who reject Him, Jesus referred to them as children of the devil. Jews who follow Christ are referred to as sons of God. So I don't think that God's going to merge in His family the sons of the devil and sons of God, but a son of the devil can become a son of God. That's the great thing. Israel is used several ways in scripture, but I realize that in the debate over Romans 11, the question is are we talking about ethnic Israel as a whole or the remnant of Israel that are saved. And of course Paul develops that idea from chapter 9 through 10 and 11, saying that the only ones who are saved are the remnant. In fact, he says it unambiguously in Romans 9:27, he says though the children of Israel be as the sand of the seashore, only the remnant will be saved. So when he says all Israel will be saved, he means all the remnant. But the reason he says "all Israel" is because he's just finished talking about the olive tree, which is Israel. He says the olive tree naturally had Jewish branches, but some of the Jews don't believe in Christ so they've been lopped off; they're not part of the tree anymore. They're not part of Israel anymore. Now, a lot of Jews like Paul himself did believe in Christ and so they're still on the tree; they're natural branches that belong there and they're there for good, so they're part of Israel. But the branches that rejected the Messiah have been cut off from Israel. And then Paul says, "And then Gentile believers have been put on there too." So now the tree is made up of believing Jews who never were lopped off and then believing Gentiles who've been added on. And in this way all Israel, meaning the whole tree, Jew and Gentile branches, all will be saved. So God said He would save all of Israel in the Old Testament, and Paul says this is how He does it. He takes the faithful remnant, which again Paul already said back in chapter 9, verse 27, only the remnant of the children of Israel—meaning of the Jewish people—only the remnant of them are going to be saved. So who's the "all Israel" that's saved? Well, that remnant, which are the believing Jews who are still part of the tree, and then the Gentiles who are added to the tree. The tree is Israel, so all of the tree is saved, the Jewish and the Gentile branches.
Bill: Could that be for ethnic Israel sort of hyperbole, like a large number of Jews will become part of the church?
Steve Gregg: Well, it could well be that they will. I hope they may. But that's not how his argument is being made. His argument is about how God, when he says hardness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in and so all Israel will be saved. How? By the fullness of the Gentiles being added to the Jewish branches, the believing Gentile branches grafted in with the believing Jewish branches, at the expense of the unbelieving Jewish branches. So part of Israel has been hardened and they're the ones who aren't part of the tree anymore. Now, it doesn't say temporarily hardened. It doesn't say it's temporary; it just says part of them were hardened and part were not. But there's that symmetry of the Jews are hardened to bring in the Gentiles and then, like in verse 30 and 31, "For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown to you they also may now obtain mercy." Right, exactly. So he's saying you Gentiles have always been disobedient, even when Israel had the law and even when Israel obeyed the law, the Gentiles were always disobedient. He says, "Now you were disobedient, now they're disobedient, so that God might have mercy on all." You see, the Jews would have thought, "Yeah, God needs to have mercy on those Gentiles if they're going to be saved, but us, we have the law, we're circumcised, we keep a kosher diet, no mercy needed for me; I deserve to be saved." He says, "No, they've had their chance to be pagans too now. They're unbelievers now too and now God has to have mercy on everybody if anyone's going to be saved." They can be saved the same way we can, but God's got to show mercy no matter who it is; Jew or Gentile equally in need of mercy because equally they've been sinners. Which is, by the way, what he was also—the point he was also making in Romans 3. When you know that famous verse "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," the context of that is back in verse 9 of chapter 3 he says, "Are we Jews any better than the Gentiles?" And he says, "Not at all." He quotes a bunch of scriptures from Psalms and Isaiah that show how wicked some of the Jews were. And then he says in verse 19, "Now that which is in the law is written for those who are under the law," meaning the Jews. This is describing Jews. And he says, "For there's no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." "There is no difference" means between Jew and Gentile. All, Jews and Gentiles, have sinned. Of course, we use that more as an evangelistic tool to say every individual in this room has sinned, and that's almost certainly true—in fact, I would say it certainly is true, everyone has sinned. But the point he's making is both categories, not just one of them. Not just the Gentiles have sinned; the Jews have sinned too. All people, including the Jews, have sinned, is what he's saying. Anyway, that's his argument he's making in many points in Romans and certainly in Romans 9 through 11. Yeah, I mean, yeah, we don't have time to discuss it further because the music's now playing, unfortunately. I always wish I had more time because we've got more calls waiting, but this is only Monday and we're on Monday through Friday for an hour and we do just what we did here, take your call. By the way, took a long time for some of you to call today and that's why you didn't get on. We had lots of calls available, lines open earlier. So call as early as you can in the day and then we'll certainly be able to get to your call. And I always feel bad when the show ends and there's still people waiting because I know some have been waiting a long time. Please call early in the future so we can talk to you. You've been listening to the Narrow Path. We are listener supported. If you'd like to write to us, the address is The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can donate from the website, though everything there is free, you don't have to donate. It's thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.