Share This Episode
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg Logo

The Narrow Path 6/24

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg
The Truth Network Radio
June 24, 2020 8:00 am

The Narrow Path 6/24

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

June 24, 2020 8:00 am

Enjoy this program from Steve Gregg and The Narrow Path Radio!

Matt Slick Live!
Matt Slick
Living in the Light
Anne Graham Lotz
Jesus Breaks the Chains
Michael Bowen
The Urban Alternative
Tony Evans, PhD
Our Daily Bread Ministries
Various Hosts
Line of Fire
Dr. Michael Brown

Welcome to Arafat's radio broadcast Steve Greg and we are live for an hour each week afternoon, we have an open phone line you can call if you want to ask questions about the Bible of the Christian faith. We discussed if you have a difference of opinion from the host want to bring that up. We can discuss that as well. Right now our lives are full but they will open up as the program goes on some lines will and you can call me if you have the number handy at the time.

At this number 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 our first color today is Ryan coming from Des Moines, Iowa, and Ryan. Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling my call last week on the difference between the elder and the deacon in first Timothy three and I think I got a little fancy with my three-part question. I generally articulate my main inquiry well. So based on your reply. I have a follow-up question because of the similarities in the character list specifically as it related to being a husband and or leaving their households.

Why did Paul allow for women to be deacons but not elders just because that's what was normative and that culture so he speaks to the masculine little would allow women in the right character situation in war if they could teach since that's what seem to be the biggest difference between the two with well the difference is that an elder is a leadership role in the deacon is a serving role and in the same chapter should say just before the chapter that the the paragraph prior to this chapter your time.

At first Timothy three. If you look at chapter 2. At the end of the chapter, Paul says that he does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over the man, but to be in silence. He says because Adam was first formed many, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression so he basically says he does not see it as a fitting thing to place women in the roles of leadership over the man in the church. Now he doesn't say whether that be something he would care about in a corporation or an government or anything like that. He's talking about the order of the family of God, which is as as unpopular as it may be to say it is patriarchal, that is to say God is the father is not a mother and he has designed families to resemble his his family and that the father according to Scripture in the New Testament, as well as the old man is the head of the wife and the wife and husband together over the children and this is the way God set things up. Now this is an order of family that is been undermined by in my opinion anti-God forces in modern civilization but Christians simply cannot afford to be politically correct, we have to say the truth, because if we don't, who will and Paul's believe the church is the family of God and therefore it should resemble the family of God. In that respect it. True family.

That's what he says that the elder must be the husband of one wife and and and with his children well behaved, because it we need know if he can manage his family well before we can know if he can manage the household of God family got so his household management his own home is that which would either qualify him or disqualify him for consideration as a leader in the church now only if the husband is the head of his home, and therefore you know the wife has a great deal of influence in an importance in the home she is not the one who's managing the home in such a sense as to to take responsibility for it and so the man has a different role in the family than the woman does and I realize it is saying that there's a whole bunch people don't like what I said I'm just in the Bible says if I was writing the Bible and I write it differently, but I'm not a Bible writer in the Bible teach and so that's why take the position because the requirement to be the husband over one why is the same for the deacon but with the difference being is that you like you said the deacon is there to serve in it. Although I called out generally, the difference being the elder is the leadership and it's really up picture of Adam over creation in Christ over the church husband over the family distinguishes the elder versus the server well yes it makes very clear that Paul therefore is not actually alluding to, any rationale that comes from his own culture or his own prejudices. He says this is the way God made God made the man first made the woman to be a helper to the man and it so happens that the woman when she took the lead in in the garden got us into trouble and his not say that all women will today just same God set it up in such a way that the man was the leader and that being so, let's just go with God. Maybe he knew something we don't helpful appreciate your call. Tom from Tacoma, Washington.

Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling your nurse on Daniel and chapter 9 verse 27 got me thinking liberty statically about the siege of Thomas's father, a bachelor in the nation. This patient was in charge of the siege intuitively get car back to learn was to commit suicide possibility that he made a covenant with Israel about a cease-fire, something and with his son taking over. They went back on it, and when I read that verse, I know your exhibition season sacrifices and things concerns Christ and yes, I believe that God did not accepting sacrifices and when Titus destroyed the temple and here 2000 years writer.

It has changed the way Jewish people practice your religion but I do not know if there's any documentation that much about that, Thomas's father cost me my treaty so you maybe talking heads many people who are listening, so this point this out. There is a prophecy in Daniel chapter 9 about the coming of the Messiah.

That is the first coming of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans after after Messiah comes from this of course happened. Jesus came publicly in 30 A.D. and or so made are 2680 in the public and and then in 70 A.D. the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem so these two things were predicted in this prophecy. At the end of Daniel nine.

Now there are some things in the proxy that are ambiguous. One point is verse 27 says he shall confirm a covenant with many for week but in the middle of the week he shall bring to an end, sacrifice and offering. And that's what were trying to discuss who is he he is going to confirm a covenant with many for week and so Tom is asking is it possible that he is the Roman general who first besieged Jerusalem that was this patient but historically during that siege, Nero the Emperor back in Rome killed himself. And after about 18 months.

I think something like that of people fighting over who should be the new Emperor.

The Senate elected this patient who happened to be decision Jerusalem across the Mediterranean from there and so of estimation. Of course left off the siege in order to go back to Rome and become Emperor that he sent his son Titus to finish out the siege. I don't know if I don't know if when Vespasian left.

I just don't have the details at my fingertips. I don't know when Vespasian left to go to Rome to become Emperor. I don't know if he left the siege if he took the seat with him and there's no siege during that time and sewed Jerusalem had a season there. Relieved they were living free and then it resumed when Titus came back or if he left some troops under some other general when he left and then sent Titus, Patrick and I I'm sure that information is known.

You could probably get from from much of the safest light 6868 years right so there's not 18 months.

There were three emperors in Rome between Nero and this patient but they were all self-appointed. They were like military coups, and you one of them ruled for like six months in London for three months and another. I forget how long they were Galba also in the chalice with their names and neither of them really lasted very long and in one years time of the year that Nero committed suicide, or at least it within 18 months at a time. There were five different emperors in Rome. Nero, being the first in these three usurpers and then Vespasian is a very chaotic year and 1/2 in Rome at the time and it may be an encouragement to us. Have a very chaotic situation. Our country right now that Rome did recover from it. There's all kinds of Civil War.

There's all kinds of usurpers to power. And yet Rome did recover from that. Anyway, the question is, is it Rome is at the Roman general who made this covenant with many for week and then in the middle of the week because the offering and sacrifice to cease. I don't think that in the context of the passage.

That is the most likely meaning I don't. I also don't know of any historical evidence that Vespasian made some kind of a peace treaty with with the Jews.

But as he did. He didn't do it for seven year. So I don't think that would be most likely meaning of the passage I believe is Jesus who came to confirm the covenant in the middle of the week it is after three and half years of ministry.

I he put an end to the sacrificial system by his own death and so that is to my mind not only what looks to me to be the most likely exegesis of the passage since the he doesn't refer back to anyone in the passage except the Messiah the Prince is that we can tell, so he I think is the Messiah who brings into the sacrificial system as Jesus did. After three and half years of ministry.

Anyway, there is obviously not there opposite views on the unforeseen cancer in the Marina because my lines are full nation just letting you some historical and simplest tax code when trying to lead him yeah yeah he's very tedious very tedious and very long time for your call brother and we'll talk again sometime.

I'm sure okay Paul from Boeing to Vista Colorado.

Welcome to the narrow path. The today theology.

What is your view is real.

You mean Israel. The modern nation or Israel. The race of the Jews are quick. How are we using the word is okay because those are not the same things. Of course the race the race of the Jews has existed ever since the tribe of Judah came into existence 2040 pricing and are still Jews today the nation of Israel modern nation has only existed since 1948, and it doesn't have any real continuity with the nation of Israel in the Old Testament during the New Testament because let the nation of Israel in the Old Testament was established by God as a religious nation centered around temple worship and worship of Yahweh is strictly speaking theocracy. The modern nation of Israel is just a political entity does have a connection with that nation. In the Old Testament because it's it's not religious and secular, it's pluralistic, there's no temple there is no none of the things that made Israel a nation. The Old Testament make a nude make the new nation nation so it's it's like I'm they could've called it something else they can have colored Israel because it's first of all, is not strictly speaking, populated by Israelites. There are Israelites there and in the majority, but there are other nations to since not strictly overlapping the nation of the race of Israel is on the land of Israel cc the word is remains a lot of things.

Now what I believe it is or was this that the people of Israel the race of Israel when they went into Egypt and when it captivity and got them brought them out with Moses.

They came out of Egypt with a mixed multitude.

The Bible says in Exodus 12 Gentiles account with them so there were some some Israelites and some Gentiles with them and they came to Mount Sinai. God took that whole group that mixed ethnic group.

He made a covenant with them to make them the nation of Israel, so the nation of Israel was never strictly speaking an ethnic homogenous group. It was Israelites and other races that came out with them and who were willing to keep the covenant that God made Mount Sinai to seek God never did make a nation covenant with them after Egypt it only had to do with their race because any Gentile could become part of the nation of Israel easily about painfully circumcised, but nonetheless it was very possible and a natural born Jew could be excluded from his room.

There were many laws in the Torah. That said, if one does this not be cut off from the people. So being part of the people of Israel wasn't strict. It wasn't really an ethnic thing at all me. There certainly an ethnic component, but Gentiles who were not ethnically Jews also were part of the nation of Israel and the entity called Israel. Anyone who kept the covenant Mount Sinai was part of Israel because that was a covenant that defined them as a nation. Now the modern nation of Israel doesn't have a covenant. There is no covenant they have with God today like you said the majority or at least a very very large number of the population in modern Israel are not even observant Jews, many of them are atheists, many of them are new majors in them are Buddhists. There's all kinds of people are an extra start with Israel and the Jewish ones and there's of course you Arabs and so forth to their so we don't have in the Middle East today nation of Israel that has it. That is, in principle, anything like other nation in the Old Testament.

So what I think of it I think it's a of modern political democratic nation that is an ally in the United States, and as with all of our allies and think we should be loyal allies insofar as they don't do things that are atrocious now.

Israel sometimes does two things atrocious and so to their enemies. There's atrocities on both sides here in America and especially the church we usually only hear about the things that Palestinians do against them, but we don't hear is often the things Israel has done similar sort the cited what the well.

Paul said Paul said that whoever longs to Christ is a child of Abraham and is the error. According the problem so you in the last verses of Galatians 3 it says if you are Christ's, then you are are Abraham's offspring, and you are the heirs according to promise. So Paul very plainly says that those who belong to Christ, that would be of course what we call the church that they are the heirs of the Abraham and promises and there's nothing ambiguous so but that doesn't mean that the church has replaced is received. Originally the church consisted of only Israelites on the day of Pentecost 3000 people got saved there, all Jewish, all the leaders of the church were Jewish. Jesus was Jewish, so what we have.

When the church began.

It was simply the faithful remnant of Israel. Now in every generation the Old Testament there was a faithful remnant of Israel, though in many cases the whole nation was apostate. Yet there were some believers some individuals that God called the remnant and they were faithful and when Jesus came.

There was a faithful individual who came and followed him, and they became his church, they became his disciples, and so the church began with Israel at basically the faithful remnant and is really follow the Messiah eventually Gentiles were allowed to come and just like in the Old Testament Gentiles could commit Israel only in the case of the Old Testament, a Gentile came into Israel by keeping the covenant made Mount Sinai now a Gentile comes into Israel by keeping the covenant that was made by Jesus in the upper room with the disciples. So we are all part of the Israel along with the remnants of his or who follow Christ writing in Roman, 1111 032 Israel and their yeah Romans 9 to 11 Paul describes this whole thing will you know you all is right in computing like with no working.

Like I said at the beginning of our call is really just a lot of different ways. Right now I could use the word Israel I might mean the political nation that was founded in 1948 as opposed to other political nations on the planet like the United States, but I might use the word Israel to mean the Jewish people. Or I might use the word Israel to refer to the geographical land of Israel. I might use the word of Israel many different ways and that was that's always been true in the Bible there are several different uses the word Israel.

That's why Paul said in Romans 96. They are not all Israel who are of Israel, meaning, depending how use the word Israel there is an Israel that is a larger group than another Israel. That's a smaller group and not all are Israel, who were of Israel doubt the smaller group are the remnant and throughout Romans nine through 11, Paul is addressing the question of how God's promises to Israel are fulfilled and so he talked to Israel, sometimes, in contrast to the Gentiles.

He mentions Gentiles and Jews and or Israel as separate entities and some connections which are not hard to tell what he means when he does. He also says that the true Israel. He has ears were true, but he just says the remnant, he takes the word remnant from Isaiah and in in Romans chapter 9 and he quotes Isaiah chapter 10 where Isaiah said though the children of Israel be as the sand of the seashore for multitude only a remnant will be saved and Paul quotes that Paul Paul's Paul never suggest that all Jewish people will be saved, but he himself says only a remnant will resent this in Romans 927. He agrees with Isaiah. Only the faithful remnant of Israel be saved. So that's it. The faithful remnant of Israel are the true Israel, to whom the promises are made, and pulses. Those promises have been fulfilled because he says in Romans chapter 11, even verse five. Even so, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace, so just as Isaiah said, only the remnant would be say pulses well. There is a remnant that is in pulses. I'm part of it. He opens Chapter 11 by making a point, since God hasn't cast off his people whom he foreknew on the Julie says I'm of the tribe of Benjamin on the Hebrew people storming. I'm obviously Hebrew Jew somewhat. Paul's argument is this that many times people have mistakenly thought that the promises of salvation and restoration.

All those good promises made Israel in the Old Testament that they apply to everyone who's got Jewish blood in their veins, but pulses no that's that's one way of thinking of Israel is that you ethnic Israel, but he said not all of them are the Israel that is the remnant to which the promises are made, and he's very clear that that remnant consists of Jews and Gentiles as we point out and in Romans chapter 9 verse 23. He refers to the vessels of mercy, which God prepared beforehand for glory in verse 24 says even us, whom he called, not of the Jews only, but also the Gentiles, so he says the true Israel that God is saved the vessels of mercy are Jews and Gentiles will just like there were Jews and Gentiles in Israel in the Old Testament.

Ruth was a Gentile. Rahab was a Gentile, but there Israelites by conversion, and many others to so what Paul points out in his and heel stresses very well in Chapter 11 with the olive tree. The olive tree that he begins to talk verse 16 of Romans 11 corresponds to the olive tree that Jeremiah mentioned in chapter 11 verse 16 of his book. Jeremiah said Israel. You are called a green olive tree in your branches been broken off course. Jeremiah started my branches broken up by going into Babylon. Paul talks at all true branches broken off and he says the ones are broken off are the Jews who didn't believe in Jesus there cut off from the tree were not part of Israel anymore, and the Gentiles who do believe in Jesus is engrafted and so they're part of the tree is this replacement theology well and you could call it that because broken off branches which were Jewish branches who didn't believe in Christ have been replaced. Paul said in their place. God is put in Gentile branches that believe, but it's not like the tree has been replaced the trees the same tree.

It's just that God has always saved the remnant and promised to save the remnant of Israel, but the remnant of Israel can write the root the writ we have the right of the tree still there and so and and it's the same treatment grown ever since Abraham and what would what Paul says is Jews who don't believe in Christ are not part of Israel, anymore than a part of the treatment broken off.

He said they can come back on.

They can be graphed back on if they don't remain in unbelief so and hundreds of Jew can be converted and be part of Israel again but he said at this point, only the believing Jews in the believing Gentiles are really part of Israel. Part of the tree and says in this way, all true Israel will be saved as Paul's teaching Romans nine through 11, tell what made them pointed and later on in life is a real wake-up call. I can reawaken the income back to their faith and begin again pretty much the analogy well it's difficult how the Bible everywhere makes it very clear that if you follow Christ for a while and then the fact that it says it's much harder for you to come back, but it's not impossible. I believe that the six and then talk about know what you dictate you all the way there is no repentance for people like that well and says it's impossible to renew them to repentance is obviously insane. It's impossible for somebody to renew those people to its it's impossible for a an external source for some other person outside of themselves to renew them but nothing is impossible for God. Remember, Jesus also said it's harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

That sounds pretty impossible, and she said well it is with man. It's impossible with God nothing should be called impossible. So in Hebrews says it's impossible for you to renew these people. Well, it may be impossible for you to not for God. Anyway a lot of time for this call.

I appreciate your call and enjoyment, Chicago talk again were taking a break at this point we still have online school take all the calls that are now waiting, and perhaps anymore that will come in in our next half hour.

At this point I just want to say that the narrow path is listener supported by the way I take to grow in Omaha. We are reconsidering whether to continue there because of the prices going up versus standard station if you want help support us.

You may. Anyone may help support Stanley or you can go to our website. The narrow

I'll be right back about 30 seconds. Tell your family. Tell your friends tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to give you the narrow path with Grant when today's media share with them for your social and send a link to the narrow, one can find on your teachings blog article teachings and archives of the narrow path radio show and tell them to listen live right here on the radio. Thank you for sharing.

Listener supported the narrow path.

Greg will back to the narrow path radio broadcast tonight in the state.

Greg and we are live for one more half-hour today and were taking calls.

Although the lines are full to give you the number because if you call later. You may just get through as a line opens the numbers 844-484-5737 at a nice color is Jordan calling from Kent, Washington Jordan, welcome to the neuropathic for calling you have a question about the NIV Bible for the majority of my walking Jesus. I've been reading the ESV that I was initially looking for a Bible that didn't have any chapter of verse numbers at that it be cool to read a book through as if it was one continuous letter and the one that I got was NIV I think it's the latest of the NIV and last night I was reading Hebrews chapter 2, when it seems to be very clearly still talking about Jesus and about how he's above the Angels, and different than the Angels and but in verse study verse six starts to replace the word him in his name and there's all the way through to the end of verse eight, and instead of being you made him a little while now an angel you made them a little lower than Angels. Then you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under their feet and I was wondering that if they just tell you what I suspected this, this is the newest edition of the NIV yeah yeah I don't use the NIV, but I do have an older version of the NIV that doesn't do that than modern versions often. I think the newest version of the NIV, I think I heard does this also there trying to become gender-neutral. I know the new RSV did this long ago and I hate teaching from it because it's so goofy. I mean that they're just avoiding using the word he to be generic of human beings because there's a very thin-skinned, I guess element in the church that feels offended if they are a woman and if men and women collectively are referred to is he which has been done in the English language since the beginning of the of the English language, but suddenly we have a generation the reasons that so so snowflake-ish I guess so tissue thin-skinned that they just can't endure the conventions of the English language where it's always been normal to speak of. When you're speaking of an individual of a generic group and not specifically about a male or female, but of both to use the word he and the only way you can avoid doing that is to use the word she or it and neither of them work very well. So what has commonly been done to avoid the use the word he is a generic for human being is to change it today. Now, of course, anyone who knows any what grandma realizes that he and they are not of the same kind of grammatical parts of the sentence because they all wanted to be sent part of the sentence can be the subject, but it's different. It's plural and that's in the passages that speak of.

He our singular and so you've got to change pronouns all the way through, and I don't lie to me. I just think it's silly. I mean I'm not I'm not against being sensitive. I can't imagine how any Christian and I would hope the people reading the Bible are usually Christians would and if they are woman how they could possibly be so thin-skinned as to not tolerate you. Centuries long traditions in the English language, which are not sexist they're just the way the way to make language work, but they are viewed as sexist by a certain extreme radical element and for some reason modern Bible translators want to accommodate that extreme element and so I think the new NIV newest one is trying to remove the word. He from those kinds of situations. Now the quotation there in Hebrews 2628 is from Psalm eight or David says, what is man that you are mindful of him, or the Son of Man that you visit him. You made him a little lower than the angels and him him him and so forth.

Of course David is toggling humanity as a whole.

I mean Adam and Eve.

Both were made in the sense that David is referring to. All humans have that distinction be made in the image of God and being given dominion over animal creation so forth. So so David is not really talking about man only, and that is as males, man and woman, and in order to bring that out again with the NIV translators have apparently chosen to do and I think the better choice is to change it change the pronoun to something that can be inclusive of both genders. While he that he has always been inclusive of both genders. That's the point they change it today and while they has has always been inclusive about gender so has he.

In situations like this. So it really hasn't done anything but accommodate grumpy people feel and some I don't approve of that car change, but it's not gonna ruin the whole translation. I hope I've never liked NIV very much myself but that this change is worse in the studio. David was referring to mankind in general it seems that Hebrews to look taking adverse and applying it specifically to Jesus is that like many people take it that way. In Hebrews 2 it could be that he is big but it's also possible he is simply repeating what David said about man in general because the penny does, he does make an application to Jesus as a man in verse 90 says but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels you know and so just like man was made a little lower than Angels.

So Jesus became a man, and as God put everything in subjection under man so God is putting in an subjection to Jesus. So he's, you know, it may be that when he starts quoting Psalm eight that he already has known Jesus as the subject. He made him a little lower than the angels, but I suspect that is one way to take it. I suspect the writer simply taken it generically as David meant it and then pointing out that Jesus is the ultimate man the ultimate Son of Man second Adam and is the one who is given dominion over all things, though he is made a little lower than the I think it's make an application to Jesus as a man from a statement that's about men generally, but I will say this is when I was younger I deftly felt that the author was specifically referring to Jesus by as the subject of Psalm eight and and there's some some case to make for that that's currently the NIV transfers don't think so. So after being so used to the little hard to read NIV sometime in the unit, even if it is a work that you think that it know if you are just getting started. I just getting started with NIV now yeah it's your call.

I mean, it's not can lead you astray. NIV is not going to lead you into heresy everything like that. I just don't think it's as good a translation as some others, including the ESV. I don't think the ESV is as good as some others, but it's better than the NIV. I believe this the scale that I'm measuring these by rising ones better ones not good is on the question of our word for word translation. Different translators have different degrees of commitment to translating word for word into English the King James, the new King James. The new American Standard art are notorious for being committed to word for word translation and many people find a little harder to read because of that, so newer translations often they distance themselves from her word for word translation and try to go for thought for thought, which means they try to discern what the fathers of the passage in the Greek or Hebrew, and then put it in their own words. In many cases in the English now the NIV doesn't do this as much as some do, but it doesn't more than I like, and so I like her word for word translation better it okay Rebecca from Washington DC. Thanks for winning. Welcome to the narrow path call wondering about what your thoughts are on how to effectively cue on honoring God and extend volunteer at the candy I left coupled on. They are really aligned like your own ability not really writing on wondering what do you have any biblical approach, a doctor how to guard outlining some principles we get from the Bible that we have to realize that in Bible times. They didn't have what we now call parachurch organizations. They didn't have special groups to get to campus ministry and prison ministry and you know crisis pregnancy counseling and and special mission organizations and things like that.

They just had the church and the church did everything, it's only because modern churches don't do everything that parachurch organizations have had to come up to fill the void and but when they do of course have their own organization.

They have their leadership. They have their financial policies and and stuff like that and so you do have to examine it just because they're doing a good work doesn't mean they're doing it efficiently or are doesn't mean that somebody isn't some leader of the organization is getting himself rich from it and and that a minimal amount of resources go to help people, especially helping as far as which kinds of services are most effective. I'd say your to be most effective in the service that your gifts are for God gives everyone different gifts and your gifts are going to be what God is giving you to be servant and effective for his kingdom and that gift at Rebecca. I don't know your gifts. Although you call a lot. I don't really know you and so I don't.

I can't say what your gifted app that I would say your parents might know which are gifted at night.

I usually think of someone doesn't know what their gift is patient asked him who lives around them because most people will know what your gift is probably before you do unless your very introspective people so introspective that I was wondering whether gift is, I don't think I've ever introspect for my gift registry like whatever whatever people say it is probably what it is and so anyway once you know what it is that your effective at then you know you can do it on your own, or you can do with an organization, or you can do it with others and if you happen to be a church, you know, maybe others in the church. You can start up a ministry within the church. There's lots of ways to get things done. I it's it's a shame that so many of the parachurch organizations have paid staff. I mean it's not like it's awful to have paid staff, but I just I know for a fact because I have a 501(c)(3) that have been running for 23 years that you don't need paid staff. You don't need it don't need to pay anybody you can.

If people are gifted in God's calling them they will want to serve and we got all kinds people serve in this ministry, we don't pay any of them including me, but a Winchesters because they feel that they want to serve God and so they do you know when when you start having some paid staff and you've got issues of motivation, perhaps with the people who work there. At times, and of course now maybe legal issues with this recent Supreme Court decision, it may be that any ministry that has the paid staff cannot turn away applicants who are transgender or you know who live immorally according to the ministries standards so as long as you and I do have a I'm disappointed by the fact that so many ministries have paid staff and that the people who feel called industry don't feel they can live by faith in the God will take care of their needs and I give up I give money to a lot of different organizations. Usually the ones that feed the poor overseas and I'm been very disappointed to read online. With the salaries are of the people who are the ministers of these organizations, but still I figure well, it's between them and God. I don't have any way to get this money to the poor overseas except through an organization like this so I'll give it to the Lord and let them ask God for as long some of you, God, do your own research. Do your own research and that the organizations if you can work with an organization, or you can work on your own, but I the Bible really doesn't have. You know teaching about how to find the right organization because they didn't have those kinds of organizations beckon just had you know that persecution happened in Jerusalem and all the people scattered and Philip went to Samaria and did something he wasn't however never done before and evangelizing started church they went out and had a ministry to the Ethiopian eunuch and so forth were not accustomed to numb our day with people being led by the Holy Spirit as much as I think we should be, and the spirit will deftly lead you and gift you for whatever kind of service he wants you to do again. I don't know you, to give you any hints along those lines, but did you want to suggest something some kind of service been looking into what I found my check with Mike lately and not I get more on interpersonal mentoring. You can deftly do that without an organization, or as far as I could. Distributing food is a great thing to do. Obviously some ministries that do so may not that the recipients very well and so they meandered doing no better than the US welfare department doesn't distinguishing who deserves money and who doesn't deserve someone doesn't that's just kind of that mineral follow the principle of those who don't work should not eat, which is a biblical command so I don't know how your church does it. I hope they do well, but I just suspect that if you make yourself available and put yourself out there in the way that your gifted that God is an open doors for you. At least that's been my experience, I can't. I can't say government.

It's virtually the same, but seems like my spirits would be the norm in that respect. If God is leading you to put you into the place in history. He has for you. All right Rebecca, thank you for your call. LSU all right. John from Phoenix, Arizona.

Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling hi about. I believe anyone will grab it all. Don't eat by young by Jillian. You you King David brought the crown that you will fortunately I really feel like I I'm just doing what I'm beginning. Well let me just say that there is a discrepancy in the accounts of the death of Saul in the final chapter of first Samuel, which is versed in chapter 31 and the first chapter of second Samuel, which is course chapter 1.

Both books were written by the same person. In fact, in the Hebrew Bible. They were originally one book just about Samuel, it was divided later in the Septuagint when translating the Greek and first and second Samuel, but that's all one book originally. So that means that if you are reading Samuel before the books were divided, you would read in one chapter of the death of Saul and then you'd read in another.

The next chapter how the death was reported to David now. The part that reports the actual death of Saul says that Saul was wounded by the Philistines. He asked his armor bearer to kill them put him out of his misery. The armor bearer wouldn't do it.

So Saul fell on his own sword killed himself and in the arm rear fell on his own sword killed himself to. That's how it is said to have happened. Now the next chapter tells us that a man came to David who is not on the scene and reported the death of Saul and he reported it as if he himself had a role in killing Saul. He says that he found Saul wounded and Saul was unable to you know survives and and asked him to kill him and so he did kill him and he took Saul's bracelets and crown and so forth and brought them to David thinking he is a reward from David for that because Saul was David's enemy. While I think it looks to me like the young man lied because he told a story different than the one that the Bible tells is seen in the first Samuel 31. The Bible tells the story in seconds. Anyone the man tells the story. Now when the Bible disagrees with the man I would say the man's line is like when you read in Genesis chapters 2 and three, God says seven. Even if you eat of this tree of knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die. In chapter 3, the devil says you won't surely die. There's a clear contradiction, but you seek what really is true, we are told in chapter 2. What the devil said is true is chapter 3, and certainly the Bible doesn't anywhere suggest that the devil would never contradict the truth. In other words, the devil is line. Likewise, if the Bible tells us what happened Saul in one chapter and another chapter tells us something different that someone else claim And Saul, then we have to assume that man is line now that is a possibility that he is line and that would be an easy enough solution to the problem. He was hoping to get some kind of reward for David for killing for allegedly killing David's enemy we would have to assume then that this man came upon Saul's body before anyone else did, and was able to take the crown and the and bracelets often so that he would actually have them in his possession and be able to claim that he killed Saul, but there's nothing improbable about that somebody had to be first find the body and this Amalekite apparently was now there's another possibility, the Bible does say in chapter 31 a for cingulate. Saul fell on his sword and died. However, maybe he didn't die and sleep.

Maybe he didn't wound himself completely and maybe this Amalekite did come up and finish them off, in which case Amalekite wasn't line he's just telling as a part of the story that was left out in the briefer explanation in the previous chapter, it is possible this man had a role in it, but but this is not necessary for us to assume it. He could be line and those of the ways we have to look at this kind of a situation because there's certainly the Bible is not affirming that this Amalekite actually did what he claims to have done is just telling us that simply said he did and David killed because in David killed him because he said you know I you I had a lot of chances myself to kill Saul that I wouldn't touch the Lord's anointed. And now you've touched the Lord's anointed. I'll take your word for that and out and killed him for killing the king and needed takes more calls before run time.

I hope that helps Earl from Roseville, California.

Welcome to the narrow pathway for calling I had a relative recommend me to get a hold and study Bible and I never did. What you think of that study Bible, the Holman Bible in the other study Bible to be really good for you know, elaborating on the word of the Holman study that has been around a long time I've had in my hands before and looked a few pages. I never really used it. Which means I don't know much about the quality of its notes and it seems to me like it's been decades since I first saw one and I don't see them around very often from time to time I meet someone who has one so I can't really give you a knowledgeable evaluation.

I I think since it was translated time when word for word translation was sort of the ideal in Bible translations I'm I'm speaking out without knowledge or just deduction.

I would assume it probably is a recently accurate translation but like all study Bibles.

It has notes in it and the notes are to reflect the theological opinions of whoever wrote those notes and I don't know what the opinions are that Bible. I know that most study Bibles are pretty devoted to the dispensational interpretation, but I don't know that Holman was or was not sure.

Maybe some other color can let us know because I don't know much about it. Okay, okay. Regardless, okay, Steve from my Lakewood Washington. Welcome to the neuropathic circling. I think in advance. Do you think you know? Answer the question Matthew 20 953 was his patient safety and become suddenly, but when you interpret the time of trouble over the nation given to the same time, like people, should be found in the book.

You also have a friend right before Christ comes back. In my opinion and my opinion right now that you could come right back.

Right now, today still I think Jesus can come back whenever he wants to sell II don't know.

I don't know specifically of anything that he has to do before he comes back. I know some projects he's interested in completing whether he thinks they've reached an adequate point of completion or not. I don't know. I know that the evangelization and discipling of the world of all nations is on his agenda and it seems to me like probably that hasn't been done sufficiently, especially since were working at it. I don't know why he'd interrupt the work when it hasn't been finished yet. Also, the maturing of the church. Paul refers to Ephesians 4 is certainly one of the things that God working on. I don't think the church is not very mature yet so my guess is that you hate probably will continue working on these things before he comes back.

I think he's got goals to meet and those goals don't appear to me because I can see as clearly as he does.

I don't know how he will evaluate that. To me it doesn't appear like those goals are complete, so I wouldn't expect Jesus necessary come back today, but I'd be delighted if you did I think is certainly welcome to do so anytime he wants. As far as Daniel 12 is concerned, I don't see Daniel 12 is talking with the end of the world. I realize there is language there.

That sounds like the resurrection, and so forth.

But but I take you to be of figurative language and I do so by comparison description the references in Daniel 12 with certain references in the New Testament which I don't have time to go to now because I'm almost time for the program but of course I do have respect for his lectures on so I think I think my lectures on Daniel 12 would answer you fairly thoroughly what you're asking about that, though I can't sadly do it here and now, I'd like to know you got calls more calls to take, but not time to take them and I don't think I could try and I don't think so. I think it would and went about two minutes and some of that is the music playing and so forth some gifts to Cheryl from Lincoln, California and Marty from national city.

I'm very sorry that Bill take your call today. However, as is the case with the daily show.

There is always tomorrow, unless of course there isn't. So we should save the Lord lives. I'm sorry if the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that. I think if the Lord lives, we will be here to take calls and anyone who calls early enough, will begin able to get on the program and I'm not saying anything that a people call late objects and sometimes as you can see, it takes a long time to get through the calls because I'm kind of wordy from time to time. If you don't like that there's other radio shows. Most people on the radio pretty were to the radio right anyway.

If you call early.

For example, if you called the beginning of the show, you will get on the air, sanded okay even listening to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and we are listener supported. If you'd like to help her stay on the stations were on. We pay for the time of the stations nobody here gets paid at the stations have to be paid or as regards their like to help her stay on. You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or you can go to the website. The narrow Everything on the website is free. You can donate there. If you choose the narrow thanks for joining us. Let's talk tomorrow

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime