This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
July 22, 2020 8:00 am
Voodoo tuning thing going and welcome to the narrow path broadcast Steve Greg and were live for an hour each week afternoon to take your calls. If you have questions about the Bible of the Christian faith or you want to express an opinion different from that of the host.
Feel free to give me a call and we will do our best to give you up enough consideration to your point had to be of assistance to you and are the listeners.
There's several lines open right now, which is usually the case at the beginning of the show so you could call in and probably get in quickly other number is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 our first caller today is Eddie calling from New Haven, Connecticut hi Eddie, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling.
Hey Steve how are you today thank you real quick real quick questions. One of the little Bible study were talking about where I get Jesus you always do refer to himself as the Son of Man when you break it down with the actually the Son of Man or the son of woman because he was of the side of the average that was that title. Yes, I can in which any question would take a look not to come along. The other question was when he was on the clock you knew you knew you had a glowing softly out of the side wall, and playing in the garden, but what he was actually on the bus almost what it was like like God what's going on here like what happened there delete like have a you know everything that I was going to happen destroy the temple through the doll riser. But what happened in that section were you like to configure all of the lot in the lab's all right began to dress both and send the term Son of Man is in fact a title and there's different theories about what he's referring to when he speaks of himself by that term, there is an expression used in Daniel chapter 7 where there is one like the Son of Man, who seen coming in the clouds of heaven to the throne of God and seated with God and this is regularly by Christians understood to be a reference to Christ. Now it doesn't it doesn't call this person, the Son of Man, which is one like the Son of Man of the term Son of Man in a Hebrew idiom just means a man, I'm your man right and in who Hebrew poetry where the same thing.
A symptom said twice and paralleled lines and those term Son of Man is often used in parallel with manlike, what is man that you are mindful of him, or the Son of Man that you visit him. The term Son of Man just means I'm your man. And so when Dennis is one like the Son of Man came, then you know it could be understood simply the one like a human being on the other hand, because of that statement. Daniel, the rabbis in the time before Christ had begun to speak of a particular character, a messianic type character which they call the Son of Man.
This is found especially in the book of Enoch which was written a couple centuries before Christ and then the Jews began to speak this way of this coming Son of Man. And so it had become. If not exactly a messianic title. Nonetheless, the title of somebody who engine in Jewish folklore harks back to this Son of Man are one like a Son of Man who is seen in Daniel who who establishes the kingdom of God. And so Jesus and calling himself the Son of Man is generally thought is taking on this title from the typical Jewish you know popular terminology and perhaps alluding to Daniel seven, particularly now that is.
And that's probably the most common view about this morning. There is another possible view, and that is that when he comes of the Son of Man.
He's understrength I could. He's really a man not so much in his own time, but a century or so later there would be those the Gnostics who who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but not not accept his human and they thought the Messiah was a superhuman divine being and need not even physical and selling of course, his emphasis that he was the Son of Man which would strongly point out that he is in fact a human being. The fact that he was God. But it laid aside his privileges and took on the form of a servant, and that the. The word was made flesh and blood among us is certainly underscored by his use of the term Son of Man regarding himself, whether that's the main point he wanted to make whether something more like the first explanation I gave is is more what was on his mind. I don't know if we can say for certain, but it could be that Son of Man was actually a very humble self as designation since he knew and on occasion but not very often mentioned that he was actually the son of God.
He was, of course, son of God and Son of Man.
He's a God man about the fact that he would emphasize Son of Man more frequently than some of God may simply be a matter of humility is part now when he was on the cross, he said, my God, my God wife you forsaken me. I don't think we should understand this to mean that Jesus is having doubts, or that he he necessarily believed that God had in any way let them down. The standard view and I will give an alternative you also. But the standard view is that when Jesus was on the cross as the sacrificial lamb for the sins of the world that all the sins of the world were transferred to him as was the case when the animal sacrifices in the temple had hands laid upon them symbolically transferring the guilt of the human to the animal and an animal died in place of the human carrying that person's guilt. That was the ritual of the temple and Jesus was the sacrificial lamb is John the Baptist called and the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and therefore, it is generally argued that when Jesus was on the cross, he became the atoning sacrifice for all humanity, and thus the sins of the world were transferred to him like the sins of the person to the animal in the temple, and that he therefore became, as it were, had had the momentary status of being a sinner not only a sinner but one who had the guilt of all the sins of humanity upon them. Ryan and the argument goes that God had to turn his back on Jesus endured the curse that sinners deserve on our behalf. He didn't deserve it but because he had our sins upon God had to turn his back on them and invite her to my question was what he knew what he was doing. He knew that he must suffer these things and he knew that he was going to be the sacrifice of what happened. It was like wait a minute was a lot here like what you know you know when a woman is when a woman is pregnant she knows that someday she's going through some severe labor pains have a baby, but we can actually hear them there, which is actually going through them. She often is screaming out in pain and saying you know I'll never do this again.
You know I say not merely delighted may be delighted to be pregnant and looking for them baby but when the and she knows is to be labor pains but when they come does make them any easier to go through but I say, as you say it is. So that's one view of why he said my God, my God, why have you forsaken me. He was, of course, quoting Psalm 22 one where David said the same thing about himself and yet as you read through the Psalm. David makes it very clear that God is not for second God will stand with them so that his statement wife you forsaken me is more or less a forlorn cry of abject action, but but that it's not really a theological statement that God had abandoned him anymore than when David said God had really abandon him either. But you and the Psalms. Many times God's. David says things like, why you so far from God. Why do you hide yourself.
Why do you like the departed item and so forth. And he doesn't really mean that that's literally true. He's just expressing his his feelings and that's with the Psalms due in Jesus and I was feeling similarly but that doesn't mean he you know that he somehow believed that he was now rejected by God. And so there is that you, there is the view that he actually was rejected by God briefly on the cross.
And there's another view that he was just like David in oak, crying out in in terms of of great emotion as David had done but neither David nor he were actually abandoned by God as to another theory.
There are some who say that in quoting the first verse of Psalm 22, Jesus was intending that his hearers would remember Psalm 22 that he's bringing it to their attention and that they might remember what Psalm 22 contains. If you read in Psalm 22, it actually can.
It contains a description of the Messiah, and crucified. If you read a little further and Psalm. He says you pierced my hands, my feet all my bones are out of joint base around me like dogs a gaping upon me. They they cast lots for my vesture and divide my garments among themselves coming these things are in Psalm 22 and they happened right there before the people's lives for Jesus on the cross and so some field. But Jesus and crying out the words of the first verse of the song were simply to call people's attention to the Psalm in general, and if they would remember they would say hey this is happening right before our eyes. So there's some suggestions that it's not certain which of these expirations really fits what Jesus was thinking back to see great answers.
All right appreciate your call governorship Bruce from Long Beach, California.
Welcome to the neuropathic for calling.
My question is being born again is such a big important doctrine in Christianity.
I find it strange that it's in only one of the four Gospels.
The you feel that way.
I think it strange Mark or Lou is well. I think the equivalent to it can be found in the other Gospels. Not nothing terminology with Jesus said that you have to become like a little child to enter the kingdom of God and that you become a child by being born and so that could be taken to mean you need to have a rebirth and become a child again though it may not mean that it may simply mean you three humble as children humble, but there are other references to be born-again first Peter chapter 1 Peter mentions that we been begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and in first John. John tells us that he mentioned several times being born of God. He said that whosoever loves is born of God and knows God. And there's other references in first John two born of God. So there are other references in the New Testament, if not in the other Gospels.
Now, it is important that there are many things that are important in the teaching of Jesus and there's very little overlap between the teaching of Jesus as recorded in John and that which is recorded in the other Gospels. All the Gospels teach the semester to believe in Jesus. John tells us that when we believe in Jesus, we actually experience something called rebirth.
The other Gospels tell us that that's what happens when we believe, but it does anyway and so innovate, they don't have to tell us about for true payment. They emphasize other things they emphasize the kingdom of God. John's Gospel doesn't really use the term kingdom of God more than a few times, but more often talks about Ionia's or eternal life that's that's John's terminology and it doesn't really overlap the terminology of the other Gospels very much. In fact, this is so much the case that there are skeptical people who think that John's gospel is not really recording true statements of Jesus because are so different than the statements of Jesus recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but I believe that Jesus spoke in the manner that John records when he was talking to the kind of people. John records Jesus in conversation with which were Jews in Judea, whereas when Jesus was in Galilee talking to peasants and fishermen. He talked in a more down-to-earth style which we find in Matthew, Mark, Luke, which record his Galilean ministry Mark Siri John Tim's record, his Judy and Mr. so the language is different and this style is somewhat different in Jesus Saenz and John, then you generally find in the synoptic Gospels and in the subject matter.
In some cases different. That's I think because once the synoptic Gospels were written and there had been quite a bit of repetition within them. They overlap each other considerably. John wrote 1/4 gospel, not intending to overlap the others that already existed but intending to fill in the gaps that were omitted by the other writers and so that would explain why there's such a difference of material in his gospel, but there's nothing really problematic. But you know the fact that being born again is important doesn't mean that one has to understand the terminology or even hear the term in order to be born-again. Just like a baby is born without knowing the expression birth, its something that one can talk about. You can talk about somebody about their their birth, but you can also not tired what it meant they still were born so and I don't think it's a problem.
But Jesus doesn't talk about it meant terminology more in the other Gospels, or even more in John, you know, John's Gospel doesn't have a mincing again after chapter 3 so I'm your question is reasonable. But I think the answer is that the other Gospels didn't think was necessary to repeat everything Jesus said they didn't have the space to do it and they apparently thought some things are more important to talk about like the kingdom of God than in the terminology being reborn, but they do repeat it. Peter especially, who is behind Mark's gospel, Titus, the last chapter, but it maybe I don't remember the term a reborn being in an Titus, but it made after having been washed every generation.
Yet he different regeneration in verse 5335 Titus to talk to the washing of regeneration, which theologians and I myself would equate with being born again, thank you okay thank you for your covers governorship Matthew from Phoenix, Arizona.
Welcome to the neuropathic for calling and he just hang up or got cut off some way to do it if you got cut off accidentally. Matthew feel free to call back will be glad to talk to you.
I don't know what happened to that call a cow from Dallas, Texas.
Welcome to hello again Mike is called thing about this during church services people the congregation is asked to stand up for the reading of Scripture and they sit down and you stand up again for this next section of the church program didn't sit down. Can you go around and put your money on the table for the offerings. Then you return to the pew. I mean, I grew up in the church and the administrative but now it is H is just more difficult.
Moving around at that pace so well you sure why. If the church so programmed like you know be 76.
My question there.
I read years ago in a magazine article that pastors and churches are the most un-physically fit, of any patient a person and maybe they're trying to help the congregation not to fall into their problem given some exercise at church.
I think all frankly mean just speaking practically to have people stand up a time to sit down at times does help keep them alert keep them from falling asleep, but I don't think that's really reason for standing up when the Scriptures mean red was a custom even in the synagogues in Jesus day the Rabbi, the rabbi would stand up. The people stand up to honor the reading of the Scriptures and then the rent.
The reveille actually sit down to expound on it, but he'd stand up to read it and so this is an old customer goes back to the Jewish synagogues and may have been taken over by the church from that, although I'm not sure if Evan understands it that way. I believe that standing is in middle Middle Eastern form showing respect. For example, is a servant would never servant would never amount would never want to insult somebody by by sitting when they should be standing, you know, and so like a servant never sit in the presence of his master. That's why I'm firing. Rebecca was coming to Isaac, who was to be her husband. She saw him in the distance and she said they were in servant, who is this is come immediately said no that's not my Lords son and she got off of her camel and stood to meet him because that would be her way of showing respect to him as her husband saw the Middle Eastern Middle Eastern stuff, but it may have been carried over into some churches.
Not all churches do what you described, but some new member in the quiet of the morning churches, I probably I probably have been in about 20 or 30 different kinds of churches and they don't all, but many of them to, but it is true. It is true that almost every church people stand up for part of it churches because the churches I've usually attended stand up for the singing and then they might stand a benediction at the end or something. But actually, I think. I mean just for all practical purposes. I think I having to stand up once in a while does keep people from falling asleep. And yeah I know Cimino, I I think people need as much help. Staying awake is that as they can get sometimes buildings appreciate your call sister.
By now okay and from Woodward Woodland, California.
Welcome to the neuropathic for calling.
Thank you for your program. I really enjoy it created an understanding of the Bible.
I'm not real familiar with the Old Testament and trying to beat that there but I will wait why the Old Testament when the young people are very godly name expect to live, guide me as being on that in the eyes of God and catch and time after time in coming to chapters where it there man was Mary and goes into it, you know my daddy is 26 reports have one life you know and you can't define the concubine/intervention in election their wife or are blank. Well, when we read the Old Testament we have to realize that were reading stories about people who lived in Middle Eastern culture whereby the way in and in the Middle East. Muslim lands a man can still have four wives but Islam allows it and Middle Eastern culture did not itself forbid certain things that Western culture which has been influence by Christianity would not allow, for example, slavery, multiplicity of wives and a number of other things.
So we do have cultural phenomena in the Old Testament time they return with thousands of years ago, but as I say many societies in Middle East they still allow polygamy but and they did back in the days of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and so forth.
These men were polygamist and you might say, but not but they but isn't God giving them his instructions well we have to understand first of all, they these men didn't have Bibles not like we do.
David David Harris, the law at least. But Abram, Isaac, and Jacob didn't have the Bible send and all they knew was the things that God had the specifically revealed to them or else what they naturally knew by either unenlightened culture.
So in less God would specifically revealed to them not to have more than one wife or not to have slaves and other concubines talk to minors like a slave whose wife not just a female slave in the house, one that the man actually married and could have children for him, but still she was considerably less than a free woman whose wife, so you've got Abraham had his wife Sarah, and he had concubine named Hagar who is a slave now both of them had children for him. It was interesting. Is it Abram did not seem to have any interest in having to concubine his wife was in for tile and she's the one who suggested to him to take a concubine so they could be offspring in the family so I mean you can see how culturally different these people were than we are and we know wife would tell her husband. Hey, I can't have babies. So go sleep in the southern younger woman so that you can have a baby, but that's you know we can't expect people in the ancient Middle East to have the cultural sensitivities that we do in modern certainly Christianized Western culture, and so when we read the Old Testament we have to give them a little bit of grace realizing that they didn't have anywhere near the information about what's on the mind of God that we do. Abraham, for example, who is called the friend of God. Again I say he had no Bible and he and he only had God communicate directly with him on that we know of a may be may be 10 times in the life of in a.
100 years, so he wasn't here from God all the time when God did speak to is usually not to give instructions about mostly to make promises to him and reaffirm promises he made so there is an awful lot going on in the culture, much of which Abraham himself was involved in that God had not mentioned about to him, apparently because it was not a front burner issue at the time with God. Now we might say, how could polygamy not be a front burner issue with God, with understand. Again, culturally, things are much different for women, especially women, who were widowed. This wasn't the only consideration, but many women were widowed in those days because of the constant wars that their husbands became an Royal linen and therefore there were more surviving women than men and a woman often did not have a very viable option for herself. Support as she could become a beggar. She become a prostitute or if her dad was saluting.
She could possibly deliver the dad but he or she could remarry if she was a widow but if there's too many windows and not enough men, women, and that culture would rather share a man with another woman then have none at all. The just for security now.
We might say, how could she endure it well.
She lives in a culture where that's not really considered to be that strange and it was something that made provision for women at a time when there weren't enough men to go around and there will often refers to that in chapter 4 at the B of chapter 4 of Isaiah about the time after a great war, when there be seven women for each man slept in all of them want is seven women take a long one man asking him to marry them all. Also I would say that men sometimes it take a second wife because his first wife was barren and he couldn't have children by her. That was the case with Abram and Sarah. That was the case actually was. Jacob taking the concubines to have children by because his wife Rachel was barren is also probably the case with sandals, father, who had to lives. Hannah being the first wife who couldn't their children and pen and being the one who bore children from initially those are some of the thoughts about why concubinage was allowed in biblical times, but we know better now in the New Testament than to have more than one wife.
I did take a break but were not done.
We have another half-hour coming up. You're listening to the narrow path, we are listener supported. You can go to our website. The narrow path.com to see how you can keep us on the air. I'll be back in 30 seconds of underway small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life, to the near and have nothing to sell you today that everything you do today's radio show was over, we invite you to visit the narrow path.com we'll find time. The audio teachings blog article verse by verse teachings and the archives. It shows learn and enjoy the thank you for supporting the listener supported narrow path if Greg back to the narrow pathway to broadcast Steve Greg and we are live for another half-hour taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible and the Christian faith or if you have a different viewpoint from the host and you'd like to balance comment the number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 our next caller is Austin from Orange, California Austin, welcome to the neuropathic circling hello Austin okay.
I mean I guess I did hear about property. Go ahead Austin. I think you okay I think you yet for some of it is pretty cool. My question is just, you know, not wildly specific but you know with the political climate and new economical climates that happening right now. I think legislating yourself and a lot more dissented situations, Christian or otherwise, but I'm just wondering what you think the posterior you know of the Christian should be in this time. You know, like, do we need to make hard political stances like our our freedoms really being stripped away slowly and it's just a slippery slope until things become worse. We said that San Gabriel Mission in California got burned down last Thursday so I'm just wondering what you think' Christian need to be like.
Should we take our chances should we defend ourselves or knows policy. Like, should we defraud ourselves and let people know spin our faces for the sake of letting them know is quite honest into more radical feats of love than he ever has before, so you can think about it that's good questions. Well first of all course we know that Christians have to be faithful and loving to their enemies, even when they live under tyranny which we some of us are beginning to little more than the people in California you have a little more to renew their living under than people in Wisconsin.
I think somebody like that but at this point. America still technically free country. But obviously leaders do like to overreach and we are experiencing some tyranny.
Now in biblical times which Christians lived under tyranny. They had no choice but to grin and bear it, so to speak, they had to. They can change anything and so they had to just love their enemies and and suffer faithfully for Christ end and we may have to do that to.
There are things we will not be able to to successfully change. In all likelihood, some of them may bring great discomfort upon us, or even pain and suffering, maybe even imprisonment and even martyrdom. I mean I'm not being overly dramatic chairman. Martyrdom is a phenomenon that Christians of expense for the whole past 2000 years are still expressing in many parts of the world. We've just been kind of exempt here in our history and that we've of course assumed quite without warrant that the week somehow God would not allow that to happen to us here and we're now seeing where there's a lot of things going on that we didn't think would likely ever happen here and so who knows, and all bets are off. So I would say that if things get so bad that there's nothing we can do but stand faithful under suffering under tyranny under persecution, even not lay down our lives for Christ if it comes to that. Well that's what we have to do like you say we have to show exceptional love and that's not really exceptional for Christian acceptance exceptional for us because we've never had to face that as most Christians throughout history have also we have been the wimps and we been the ones who really never had to endure hardship like Christians have for the past 2000 years to most world so I mean it's what we make, we make it our turn. Why not deposit all of all who live godly crises of the suffer persecution and no doubt some of us have wondered what was the persecution here, we may find out soon enough that a separate I was you connect no kind of reader everything to state Gallagher seems like a time where tenant is going to separate the wheat from the chaff and the people who claim to be Christians, you know, like states begin to grow in bringing in a dwindling media that actually actually is something that persecution has historically done and and maybe exactly what we need here, though I don't typically want it, but that he what we need.
God will give us what we need not always what we want, but having said that, I want to say something else to and that is that were not exactly the condition or the position that early Christians were because we live in an age where a more a more general form of government includes citizens having a voice in others forms of democracy that are never commonplace.
Some of them are videos democratic socialist or Democratic this or that some of them are democracies in name only, but we still live in a country which affords more freedom than almost any country ever has in history and among those freedoms are the freedom to speak out and to vote and to possibly influence public opinion may be to influence the government a possibly even to be in some sense involved in the way that and in who reigns over us.
You know and write that is different than in biblical times because they didn't have that opportunity in the Roman Empire and that being so, it is always been my view that where there is an unusual opportunity. There is also unusual responsibility. She said to whom much is given of them, much will be required and we are stewards. For example, if I had a lot of money and you didn't I would have more responsibility and stewardship of my money than you would have with yours. Whoever has more has more responsibility because it's all God now but that doesn't only apply to money. It applies to any kind of advantage and I think that having living in a free society is a tremendous advantage. It's not something were guaranteed and is not something we can't lose, but it's something we have now and as we have it. I believe we have responsibilities. Stewardship now I don't I don't put it on everybody that they have to vote in election, though I have come to feel that that is probably what a Christian is responsible to do when they have that opportunity because not because politics advances the kingdom of God per se the kingdom of God is not even affiliated with any nation or any political party, but God has an interest in justice. We know that from the Old Testament to the new Jesus said the weightier matters of the law are justice and mercy and faithfulness. We know it's a big issue to to Jesus and in the Old Testament are justice and righteousness were the thing most of all that God appealed to Israel, for he was looking for a just society Christians among themselves should live in justice. We should do justly, and love mercy and walk humbly with your God. But we have to realize it's not just in the Christian community. But in the world at large that God sees many injustices that he hates and that if we have abilities, opportunities to let's say choose leadership or influence legislation or do anything that might contribute to a greater justice and society. True justice in society, then we may in fact have a response with the steward that that way. So if we see for example 1 of their options at at voting time is for policies or politicians who are going to take away freedoms that we really should should have freedoms that God has given us in the God wants us to have. We may well have an obligation to influence whatever you know. Use whatever power you have to influence government to retain those freedoms not just for ourselves.
I would say not selfishly because no Christian should ever doing selfishly, but we are looking not just our own situation but that of our neighbors response to love our neighbors love herself and for me, I know that I would not like to have my freedom of speech, taken from me. I would not like to have my freedom of worship taken from me and therefore I don't want my neighbors to be taken from him either. And the only way I can do anything to influence how my neighbor with his fortunes are those respects would be to be involved in whatever I can to influence society in such a way that my neighbor and my children, my grandchildren will have it as well as I petted and that's not you abandoning the kingdom of God for no worldly politics that is standing for the principles of the kingdom of God in a situation where we have an unusual voice and ability to have influence and even to possibly shape society and government so I'm not I'm not really a political guy and I don't. I'm not a member of any political party. I've never endorsed any particular political candidate, but I do believe that is a Christian have to endorse justice in general as God's ideal and there are certainly times not all times are quite as obvious as our own. But there certainly times when the choice in election is a choice between a more just society or a more unjust society and I think that a Christian who has the ability to devote or to have influence probably has a stewardship responsibility to do so. I believe that the conscience of every individual, but I think we should do what we can to promote freedom and justice of soldier kingdom values in society but not mistake them for the kingdom of God itself. In other words, the kingdom of God isn't America, you know, becoming a Christian nation. For example, the kingdom of God is the Christian community as an alternative society to the society at large, but like leaven and lump of dough as a society that influences its environment in a good way. That's of course of the Christian has done for the past 2000 years. That's why that's why there's as much justice or as much improvement in justice and societies, as there has been over the past 2000 years you were talking to the previous call about polygamy and how that they didn't know what was wrong and made him give all societies practice it but we don't. Why don't we.
Because our societies benefit enforced by Christianity. So even even outside of the Christian community. The secular people in our society have benefited from the greater justice that has come upon society because of the influence of Christ and the church so there's a two-pronged answer to your question reduce is that is it. This is it that night say yes both and you know we do have preprepared where we should do what we can to promote a more just and free society. But knowing that we may not succeed, at least as much as we would like to be prepared for outcomes which we could not avoid, and that could even include being prepared to love, not our lives even to the death research I that's a really great during you so much you rock me and my friend John Salo are looking to you is great to hear from you. God bless you and ability to get here all right. Eileen from Los Alamitos, California.
Welcome to the neuropathic for calling hi great Steve, hi How you do. I just wanted I had like kind of wanted to ask your opinion on something and then I also wanted with biblical question that the pay the whole mass gleaming thing here in California, it's gotten very you like strict and almost strangely strict and especially at a time when it seems like things have leveled off and the death rates are really low and I almost like there's something really more acutely and on.
I just I make a statement. I've been that I looked until the whole mass staying in. I even feel like it's unhealthy for healthy people to wear them health experts. It said the same thing exactly say one thing one week in the opposite thing the next week and in the back to the first thing again. I mean there's obviously no scientific authority instantly.
No consistent scientific opinion that would suggest that wearing masks is better now that is what you're hearing all the time now because that's the current opinion. Apparently of Otto Dr. couch year of this CDC whenever I get. There's the government has we who knows what what what motivates the government to do what it does, but they're not really motivated by truth. We know that we know that not because if they were they would know that you for kids to go back to school is not going to promote outbreak in science proves that science proves it very, very few children get covert or die from it and and most countries in Europe have had the kids go to school is no problem and there are some states here were in that school button summer say no it's not based on science is based on something else and I don't mean to be conspiratorial but there's it's not hard to see anyone can see that about power. It's about. It's about making is about convincing the subjects that is the citizens that they have to be subject that be subject to the rulers. In other words, it's an attempt to remove the form of governance that is based on the Constitution and substitute it with the autocratic government and we know that neither. It's not so obvious in California. There's no question about this because they forbid things that don't make any sense to forbid and and they allow things that on the grounds of forbidding certain things would be crazy to allow that's is all arbitrary now as far as a Christian's response to this. Some people say we should wear a mask because it's loving to our brother. I don't know that it is or isn't. I don't know that has any impact my brother all some people say we should wear a mask because the loss is so versatile by the law of the land well up to point we are supposed to obey the law of the land if and until they tell us to do something that would go against our Christian conscience. Some people say you know we don't have to obey the law of the land in a case like this because they are there just fly by the cedar pants. They have no authority they're going against constitutional authority. So don't have any. They don't have any real legal authority just because somebody who holds an office says to do something doesn't mean they have authority and in America, the supreme law of the land of the Constitution.
Every person who is elected to office swears to uphold the Constitution is obligated to do so when they don't will them there in violation of their oath of office and their acting outside their sphere of authority and once max outside the sphere of authority for nobody except an ordinary guy telling his opinion about what you should do. The government is authorized by the Constitution to do certain things and not other things and so there are many in the November legal scholars and there are many who say the Constitution does not allow a governor. For example, to say you can't go to church or that you have to do certain things that have nothing to do with his sphere of influence, and so I mean I would just say follow your conscience I don't I don't see Christian should or should not wear masks.
I I do say Christians should pick their battles. In other words, I think that if the government says wear a mask.
I'll probably wear a mask in those places were likely to have a confrontation with the government about it. You know, but I don't feel the need for a mask. I see I see no need for mask. I don't feel endangered I'm definitely in an age group where I'd be more vulnerable to death if I got the virus but I happen to have been paying attention for the past couple months to the facts. The scientific facts and the statistics on very persuaded. There's no serious danger for healthy person my age almost 70 by the way, approaching 70. I don't think a person is healthy. As I at this age is in very great danger. Also not afraid to die in this is another thing that some strange about this legislation, fields, safety precautions, we have never before had our freedoms taken away in order to avoid dangers that we take voluntarily. For example, driving a car driving a car probably has at least as many deaths as most diseases cause and yet there's never been any forbidding of driving cars because of it. You take your chances when you drive, the flu is the same way there's there's tens of thousands of flu victims every year, hundreds of thousands sometimes, and yet we've never close things down to people and avoid the flu in their favor. They can stay home, but why should people who are well and not afraid have to have their constitutional liberties taken with limited frankly it doesn't make sense of and nothing the government has been doing with reference to covert to my mind, has made much sense but I know I also don't want to pick a fight with the government over some like this.
I'll pick my fights on things more important than wearing a mask and I will pick those flights when they need to be picked but I you know I basically comply. The only time I would probably refuse to comply is if I felt very strongly that by complying I'm communicated to the government that they have the right to tell me anything they want me to do.
Whether it's within their sphere of authority are not. And that I'll just sheepishly follow along encouraging them to take further steps of intrusion into my rights and frankly I don't think the Bible instructs us to go along with that necessary. People sometimes understand Romans 13 differently than I do. But I don't think it. I don't think it gives carte blanche to government officials to do whatever you want to them to intrude into your life, especially in a constitutional republic where the Constitution rules over the government rather than the government ruling of the Constitution so you know when when constitutional freedoms are taken by the government is acting outside it.
Sphere, but that doesn't mean we can't submit efforts advantageous for us to do so. There just that's just my ramblings on this yet another question I yet 100% agree with you mightily and all that night. I feel like there's something definitely more behind the whole thing in other areas. There was another question. I'm running out of time that the question is, once my will and my friend thinks that the vaccines that they're preparing and so forth.
She felt like they're going to make the kids take them before going back to school and supposedly there's some sort of that chip in their back scientifically, there really is a chip that I don't know what it means or whatever and and I've heard all I don't what what is your opinion.
First of all on all that and also the thing about the mark of the beast. Yeah well I don't think knowing full well it's worth taking a mark of the beast or not.
I would think I would think that no one will accidentally take a mark of the beast.
I will say this, that the I don't consider that taking a chip or a vaccine are what is referred to them in Revelation 13 when it starts with the mark of the beast is no mention of any chips there are vaccines there's much of a mark on the hand of the forehead and a mark by definition, something visible, not something hidden under the skin that you can't see but you know since the 1970 and the late great planet Earth. Those of the years I've been in this room has 50 years I've heard all kinds of things identified by so-called prophecy experts as the new theory about what the mark of the beast is I have no more reason to trust this one than any other.
On the other hand, I'm such a person. I would not take it and this would even be if there's not a single reference to the mark of the beast in the Bible. I I I'm not the hike I don't believe that the government has a right to force me to put things under my skin and that and put chemicals my body that have no that don't want their that's just not the government's role and and I frankly appreciate my privacy. So possibly not comply know if I had children in school that wouldn't be an issue.
I just take them out you know there's good reason to come out anyway. I mean if you're especially here in California. Don't think it's to school there to teach them. Perversion and they will in many schools, but they do start up California from teaching them sexual perversion, little kids and has been paying attention to that had better wake up before the cynic is back to school. My kids didn't go to school anyway. We homeschooled them, but and I would suggest that people in California have little choice but to homeschool their children.
You know if the schools that teach the curriculums of a Savior to teach them.
If you check out this research. No Christian should subject their children to kind of perversions that the public schools in California are determined to subject them to so it's time to get your children out of the schools and into your own hands of somebody says but I can't afford to have a job well. The churches should help the finances of single moms who can't stay home with the kids, just like churches. The Bible had to support widows if if a married couple has two incomes and has children that need to be educated. I would suggest one person should give up the job and stay home with the kids and if they have to they can reduce their standard of living. There's no sin in reducing your standard of living, but there certainly is a sin in stumbling your children you must will have a millstone around your neck and turn and see Jesus says to stumbler children. I can't imagine how anyone sending their kids to public schools in California would be able to plead before God that they didn't stumbler children. That way, and it's not just California is coming on the whole country so it's time to take charge of your family of your children and I believe this was true.
Back when I was raising my kids 30 years ago, but if it was true then it's more so now those are my thoughts about that all right. I appreciate your call very much and of course we spent a lot of time with.
I need to take another couple for rent at the time, let's talk to Kirk from it somewhere in Michigan hi Pete good Kirk Silverstein called would like to get your perspective in your take on an author Norman Grob them. Yeah, Fred Reese house intercessor you okay what I've been yet well Norman Grob was Norman Grob was a rider, and spiritual leader. I know the last I heard of years ago. He was the head of his running. Some called union life ministry II read Norman Grubb's book Reese house intercessor back in the 70s and I thought very well of him from that book, but I would also say that his I do know him later on he got involved in some called union life ministries and I yet is very vague with her term of the son of a new age Edom have to say, so I can't really recommend him other than the book that I read. I would still recommend, but I have not kept track of his are I assume is been dead for some time. He was an old man when I was regaled he had a little research on the front of mine gave me a book in a dotted book. I would you stomach while the flame that's too much time and that Mike nor Mona want to get a little bit more information and and how to write how recent is the book it it's an older bucket. It was published back in the early 80s. They are probably not old enough. I think it was in the early 80s that I was first hearing things that he was saying that some very New Age at me. I can't yet I can and I can't reproduce imperfectly now. Yeah that's fine.
Do you have any articles on website did go into that about him. Yes no I do not. I don't have anything on him. You know who might is Hank had a graph of the vital aspect. He seems FIs and everybody evenly out check that out all right.
Rooted venue, and God bless you, thank you for your call. My apologies to those of you who didn't get on today. This is only what to say. Wednesday is we will still have till Friday run every day this Wednesday. Couple more days so please call back tomorrow if he didn't get on today you been listening to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and we have been doing this program daily for about 23 years amazing.
What's it what's amazing about it is a cost tens of thousands of dollars every month that we paid to radio stations so that we can be on the air. There are no other expenses just the radio stations and we are listener support with no sponsors without selling products. If you'd like to help her stay on the air.
You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or go to our website. The narrow path.com. Let's talk again tomorrow