The Narrow Path 9/1

Music Good afternoon, and welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we're live for an hour each weekday afternoon taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith, we're always glad to take your calls and discuss those with you.

If you see things differently than the host and you want to talk about that, feel free to give me a call. The number is 844-484-5737, and this is not one of those days when I have to tell you, well, the lines are all full, so call back later. The lines are not all full. There's several lines open right now, so if you want to call now, it's a good time to get through.

That may not be the case 15 minutes from now. The number to call is 844-484-5737, and our first caller today is Scott from Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, to be exact. Hi, Scott.

Welcome to the Narrow Path. Hi, Steve. I've got two questions, please.

The first one is pretty easy, I think. Your show is broadcast or rebroadcast in the morning. It's on in the afternoon, it's live, and then it's rebroadcast the next day. Do you have to pay for that air time for the rebroadcast?

How early in the morning are we talking about, like in the wee hours? No, it's on, like, right now, it's on live, and then they pay it, like, at 10 in the morning again. All right. I don't know if we're paying for that or not because I don't keep track of that.

The people who handle the financial aspects of the ministry would know that, so I can't tell you. Okay. My question is about, I've heard you talk about breaking fellowship, like, that's not something to break fellowship with, and I was wondering what things are things to break fellowship with. I really dislike some of the things the Catholic Church teaches, and not with all the people, but like the leaders, you know, they say, besides the Pope, he would say that you have to go to church, or you have to go to Mass on Sundays, or else you're not a part of the body of Christ, which they call the church.

Okay. Well, I don't agree with that. I don't think that they have any biblical authority for saying that, so I wouldn't worry about it. But as far as breaking fellowship, I consider fellowship to be something that happens between people, not between a person and an institution.

Now, an institution might kick you out if they don't like you, or you might find nothing about the institution to attract you to it, so you might leave it. But as far as fellowshipping with people, the fellowship of the saints is the fellowship of those who are disciples of Jesus. A person who is a disciple of Jesus is somebody who recognizes Christ as the Lord of their life and acts like it.

They believe that they should be obedient to Him and follow Him, and they, of course, believe that He is both Savior and Lord of their lives. Those things characterize disciples, according to Scripture. Now, you might find some disciples in some Catholic congregations or in some Protestant congregations, but you're not going to find any congregation of any kind where everybody there is a disciple in all likelihood.

At least it would be very rare to find a church, unless it's very small and very committed, where everybody is a disciple of Jesus. You don't have to break fellowship with anyone unless they are claiming to be a disciple of Jesus and bringing scorn on the name of Christ by their unrepentant sin. Jesus said that if your brother sins against you, you talk to him about it. If he doesn't repent, then you take two or more. If he doesn't hear them, then you take it before the whole church. If he doesn't listen to the church, then you should not regard him as part of the church. He should be treated like a tax collector or a pagan, Jesus said. That being so, I would disfellowship somebody if they claimed to be a Christian, but they were living in sin and did not repent when they were confronted about it.

That would be the issue there. As far as doctrinal differences, like theological differences, there are dozens of theological differences Christians have, which we pretty much have to tolerate unless we want to start an exclusive cult or exclusive denomination or something like that. We have to live with the fact that not everyone is a Calvinist if you are, not everyone is an Arminian if you are, not everyone is going to be a dispensationalist if you are.

We've got to recognize that Christians don't all see everything alike. That being so, we have to recognize that the body of Christ and the family of God is diverse and God wants us all to love each other in practical ways and so forth. Now you don't have to go to church necessarily in an institutional setting with people who you don't agree with if you don't want to, but if there are saints there, if there are disciples of Jesus there, and you're in fellowship with those disciples, I don't think there's any sin in going into a church that you don't agree with. I mean, I hope not because I couldn't go into any church.

All the churches out there have something or another that I can't agree with, but that doesn't matter to me. The real issue is whether people are following Jesus. That's what makes them a disciple. And following Jesus means they're trying to live obediently to Christ, obviously. And if they sin and they are confronted, they'll repent. Or maybe they'll repent without being confronted. But somebody who sins and lives in sin and doesn't repent, they're not a follower of Christ, obviously. I mean, the very description of their life proves they're not a follower of Christ.

And therefore, go ahead. You were talking about the other day about how Jesus was upset with the Pharisees because they laid this burden on all the people, and they wouldn't let their finger to help them relieve it. But Jesus' burden is the light. And that's what I'm thinking of. I don't think Jesus was saying that the Pharisees were followers of Christ. So when people lay burdens, me, if I'm laying a burden on you, I'm telling you, you have to do this.

And isn't that not following Christ, if I'm telling you the wrong things? Yeah. All right. Okay.

I guess that's it. Okay. Thank you, Steve. Okay, Scott.

God bless you. Thanks for your call. All right, bye. Okay, bye now.

All right. Let's talk next to, it's going to be Linda in Cedar Ridge, California. Linda, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Oops, I didn't hit the right place. There it is. Hi, Linda. Welcome. Hi.

This phone might get a little staticky, but it's a landline. It's the best I have. Okay. My question is on, I'm in the midst of a Bible study in Hebrews, and Michel's a dick. I would really like you to just kind of, if you could, in a synopsis of some sort, maybe tell me his purpose and his background, like, for example, the lack of his birth and death records. And I've also read that maybe he could have been related to Noah. Well, some people say he was Seth.

Yeah. I mean, some Jews, I'm sorry, not Seth, say he was Shem. Some think he was Shem.

Yeah. But I don't think he was Shem. If he was, it seems like the writer of Genesis would call him Shem when it mentions him because it mentioned Shem earlier. But on the other hand, Melchizedek is a name that means King of Righteousness. And, you know, if Shem had become a king and a righteous one, he might have had that title rather than as a name. That's what much Jewish tradition suggests.

I don't follow it because I think the writer of Hebrews does not. There's only three times in the Bible or three passages that discuss Melchizedek. The original passage is in chapter 14 of Genesis, where Abraham met him after he had fought a war and won it, and he gave him a tenth of the spoils and he received bread and wine refreshment from him and received a blessing from him. And not much else is said about him. We're not told anything about who he is except that he was the King of Salem. Now, Salem could be another name for Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Shalom or Salem means peace. And so many people think that Salem is a reference to Jerusalem. If that is true, then Melchizedek was the king of this city, Jerusalem, which was a pagan city, by the way. It was a city that was not yet conquered by David. David would conquer it, make it a Jewish city. Until then, it was the Jebusite Canaanite city. And so it'd be strange for a pagan Canaanite city to have a godly king and priest.

But some people think that's so. Now, in Psalm 110 verse four, we have the second time Melchizedek appears. Now, you have to realize between the time the psalmist wrote and the time of Abraham when he met Melchizedek, there's a thousand years.

There's a thousand years between Abraham and David. And therefore, you go a thousand years after Abraham is meeting Melchizedek and nobody even mentions Melchizedek. We know nothing more about him until David comes along and says that the Messiah is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Now, there's never been any reference in the Bible to any priesthood of the order of Melchizedek and certainly not in David's day because David lived at a time when the priesthood was of the order of Aaron and not Melchizedek. So that David mentioned this is very peculiar, very mysterious. Why would the Messiah be a priest after the order of Melchizedek instead of after the Jewish order of priests?

Well, no explanation is given. Then the next and last time we find anything about Melchizedek is in Hebrews. And Hebrews takes the few things that we get from Psalms and the few things we get from Genesis 14 and he unpacks them. And he basically indicates that Melchizedek seems to have been a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. Are you aware that in the Old Testament there are times when God appeared in human form and we call these Christophanies or Theophanies, which means an appearance of Christ or appearance of God. This is before Jesus was born on earth, but he dwelt in heaven. The writer of Hebrew seems to believe Melchizedek was Christ meeting with Abraham. And that wouldn't be too strange actually because Jesus said to the Jews in John 8, your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it.

And they said, you're not yet 50 years old. When did you ever see Abraham? And, you know, well, when did he? I mean, Jesus came along 2000 years after Abraham.

Well, it may be that this was it. My question to you also then, well, what do you think his purpose was? Do you, I thought what I could get out of all the three scriptures or the three books was that his purpose was to kind of be a type of Christ that introduces Christ. Well, this is a widely held view in among the commentators that Melchizedek was a type of Christ. Now there's a difference between a type of Christ and a Christophany because a type of Christ would mean he's an ordinary man, no more abnormal than Abraham himself. Abraham himself could be seen as a type in some stories of God and his son Isaac as a type of Christ. And David was a type of Christ, but they were ordinary men. To say something as a type of Christ means that there's something about their life that sets a pattern that would be repeated in Christ. So it's sort of like a preview of Christ in somebody who isn't him. So if Melchizedek is a type of Christ, then he isn't Christ.

He's some other person. And therefore most commentators seem to believe that Melchizedek was the king of Jerusalem and that, again, Jews tend to believe he was Shem and that's possible. Shem probably would have still been living at this time and he would be the oldest living man on earth and the last survivor of the flood and so forth. So Shem would be a very revered character. So if Melchizedek is an ordinary man, then to make him Shem would be a sensible thing. The problem I have with it, well, the problem I have with saying He's Shem or any other man is that the writer of Hebrews seems to indicate that he is Christ. That is a Christophany, not just a type of Christ. Notice what the writer of Hebrews says in chapter seven, verse two. He says, Abraham gave a tenth part of all. First Melchizedek is translated king of righteousness and then also the king of Salem, meaning the king of peace.

Now Salem is a form of Shalom, so it means peace. And so the writer of Hebrews is saying, we're not talking about a man who's a king of Jerusalem. We're talking about a man who is the king of peace and he's the king of righteousness.

And to make these points about him is setting us up for something here. He says in verse three, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the son of God, remains a priest continuing. Now the son of God was Jesus, the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity as we normally say. And so was he, so was Melchizedek.

He was like Jesus in that respect. He was the word of God come down in a human shape, but he did so without coming through the family line. He didn't have parents. Now the commentators who think Melchizedek was an ordinary man just think that when he says he was without father, without mother, without beginning or end of days, that it's simply saying he didn't have any genealogy recorded. Of course he had parents, but he, and he had a beginning and end of days. Well, that's what they say. I don't agree with them.

No, no, no. He's not mentioned after the book of Hebrews. And so, but here's the thing it says about Melchizedek in verse three at the end of verse three, he remains a priest continually.

Now that's in the present tense. The writer of Hebrews is writing 2000 years after Melchizedek met Abraham. And he says to his audience 2000 years later that this man remains present tense, remains a priest continually. Now, a little later on, it says in verse eight, where he's making a contrast between the priests of the Jewish Aaronic order and Melchizedek. It says here, and he means in the Jewish order in the temple, here mortal men receive tithes, but there, meaning in the story of Abraham and Melchizedek, he receives them of whom it is witnessed that he lives.

Now notice the contrast. He's saying the priests after the order of Aaron are mortal men who die. Not Melchizedek though. Melchizedek was not a mortal man who dies. In fact, it is testified of him that he lives.

Now I'd like to know where it testifies anywhere that he lives. It doesn't testify in Genesis 14 that he lives. It doesn't testify in Psalm 110 that he lives. So where is the writer of Hebrews getting the idea that somebody testifies that Melchizedek lives?

Well, I believe he has made the point already. Melchizedek is Jesus. And the testimony that Jesus lives, the fact that Jesus lives is proclaiming that Melchizedek is still living because he is Melchizedek. He was a Christophany.

That's what I believe. Now, anything less than that, we've got the writer of Hebrews saying crazy things, like contrasting a mortal man with other people who are contrasted on the basis of them being mortal. He says the priests of the temple, they're mortal men, but not this one.

This man, it is testified of him that he lives continuously. And therefore I take him to be a reference to Christ visiting Abraham before the birth of Christ. Yeah, there's a lot to it. All right.

And when he said he came without coming through the human family, so he didn't have father, mother, beginning of days or whatever, he just appeared to meet with Abraham. Yeah. All right.

Well, I got to take another call. It's the first time I've ever learned about Melchizedek and I've been a Christian for 35 years. Yeah. Well, I have, of course, lectures. There are lectures on my website through Genesis and through every book of the Bible.

And if you go to my lecture, if you go to Genesis 14, you'll have all this information presented there too. Well, thank you so much for shedding so much light. All right. God bless you, Linda. Thanks for your call. Okay. Our next caller is Lee from Benbrooke, Texas.

Lee, welcome to The Narrow Path. Hey, where's Benbrooke close to in Texas? We're a little bit south of Fort Worth. Okay. Yeah. And I'm right here in the Metroplex and I've caught actually just about March or April. You came on to a radio station. I just had an auto scan, but I've been listening to people either harass you or, or just drone you on.

So we'll make this real quick. I'm saved. I'm a sinner and I work with people that ask me questions of Muslims and atheists and Christians, but there's a couple of things. I believe in the Holy Spirit. It guides my life.

I'm married to my, I've been married for 20 years. I'm apologetic. So I try to defend the gospel, but I can't defend my actions all the time. So I like to be witnessing, but there's some things I don't know. There's two verses in the Bible that not distress me, but I cannot explain. This is chapter one, verse one, then verse two. And then the second one is the last verse, the last of John, where he told these 12 men so much stuff that all the books of the, in the world cannot contain it. So whenever I'm witnessing somebody and they ask me a question, I have to tell them, I don't know. That's something God has not revealed to us. Okay.

So, okay. Now what is your problem with Genesis one versus one and two? Well, he created, which I believe that everything was created with these.

I mean, it was actually created, it was perfect. And, and then, so I think that was, that wouldn't, the statement was thrown down to earth and then it all went in a hand basket. Well, I, I'm not sure what you mean the, and then you mean verse two begins with and then, is that what you're saying? Well, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, right?

Okay. So he did, then was without Boyd and he hovered over the, the, the deep. So I mean, what happened between created and he was hovering over something that was not completely created? Well, he created the heavens and the earth, but he hadn't created everything in the heavens and the earth. The heavens, the earth are the realm of where the rest of the creation takes place. For example, the earth, the sea existed before there were living creatures in the sea. The dry land existed before there were plants growing on the dry land, before the world existed, before there were animals and men on it. So we have him creating the earth and the heavens. And then the rest of the chapter, he fills them up with the things. He fills the heavens with the stars and with the sun and the moon, and he fills the earth and the sea with creatures. Darwin and all these other people are theoretically putting the answers into our heads?

I'm not really sure. No, Darwin isn't, doesn't really connect with Genesis much. He, his, his theory would not probably recognize Genesis as having any value at all. He, Darwinism teaches that the earth is billions of years old and that life began with a single celled creature and developed into all the living plants and animals we have today, which I believe is not true, but I'm not really sure what your question is. I'm not sure your question, you're suggesting, you're suggesting there's a, there's a bit of change between verse one and verse two. That's what you're suggesting.

And I'm not seeing a change. I just see him creating the heavens, the earth, and it tells us what condition they were in. They were in the, it was dark because he hadn't made the sun, moon and stars. The earth was void. That is empty because he hadn't filled it yet. And, and water covered the earth.

I apologize. Is there a, so theoretically, cause I believe the Bible, but when people present me with arguments or their presentation of how they believe, and I'm trying to witness to them, is there a presentation of a time difference between what I believe is 6,000 years and what they believe is billions of years? You're, you're, you're asking how the Bible would accommodate that time difference? Well, no, cause I'm not, I don't understand God cause that brings me to, okay, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not under, okay, I'm not understanding your question. There are two different views about the age of the earth and there are Christians who hold both of them.

There are Christians who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old and there are those who believe the earth is billions of years old and they each find their own way to accommodate those theories into Genesis. So, but, but the, your, when you're witnessing to your friends and they're asking you questions, what are they asking you? Cause I'm not getting a specific question from you about this. What is it they're asking you that you wanted to know how, what to say?

That's the reason I'm going to John, the last verse of John. Well no, let's talk about this part first cause that's an, that's an entirely different subject. So what are your friends asking you about Genesis that you're asking, you say you don't know how to answer it? How do I, how do I say that the bones of a dinosaur are only 6,000 years old? Well, Genesis doesn't say anything about 6,000 years specifically. The dinosaurs were created when, when the animals were created cause they were animals.

Now how old are they? Well there's got to be some dispute about that. Those who believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old would believe they were created within that timeframe. Those who believe the earth is billions of years old sometimes have argued that dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago and died out in the Cretaceous period. But there's really no proof of that, especially in view of the fact that they have recently found dinosaur bones that have soft tissue inside the bones, which would not be the case if they're tens of millions of years old. They, they, they can't be that old.

How old they were, I don't know. But, but here, okay, here's the issue. Here's the issue. If your friends ask you how old the earth is or whatever, let's say the Bible doesn't tell us specifically how old the earth is. Many people use the genealogies in Genesis to trace back the earth to about 6,000 years ago. There are other people who think that there's another way of looking at Genesis chapter one that doesn't necessarily connect it to 6,000 years ago. So, but that's not an issue. I mean, why is that an issue? What would it, what would it matter whether God made things 6,000 years ago or 5 billion years ago? What does it matter?

Yes, sir. And once, once again, I'll go to the Holy Spirit and apologetics. Cain said, why would he have to have a mark if he was the only man on the planet?

Well, the Bible doesn't, wait, wait, wait, wait. He wasn't the only man on the planet. There were lots of people on the planet. Where did they come from? The Bible says they all came from Eve.

Her name was called Eve because she was the mother of all living. So, so it was his own brothers and sisters and perhaps nephews by this time. All right.

There's a lot of genealogy. Okay. I understand, but let's go cause I know you need to get to other callers. The, the, the, the last one is the last verse of John. When he tells these 12 men, 12 scared me in that ran away when he was getting crucified, he said he told these 12 scared me in so much information that they changed the world. So when I tell people, I don't know all the answers, I have no idea what Jesus, cause I believe Jesus, 40 days he ran across this planet and so. Okay.

I need to break in here cause we have a break coming up. Let me just say that when John said, if everything Jesus said and did was written, the earth itself would not contain all the books. He's using what we call a hyperbole. He's exaggerating. The earth would contain enough books, but he's saying that what Jesus said and did was so many things that no one would attempt to record them all and that he has not tried to record them all.

He's saying Jesus did many other things besides what I've done, but the idea that the earth couldn't contain the books is what we call a hyperbole. We use those things all the time. You're listening to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Rigg. We're taking a break at this point. We have another half hour coming up. Our website is the narrow path.com and I'll be back in 30 seconds.

Please stay tuned. Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. We're proud to welcome you to the narrow path with Steve Gregg. He has nothing to sell you today, but everything to give you. When today's radio show is over, we invite you to visit the narrow path.com where you'll find top audio teachings, blog articles, verse by verse teachings, and the archives of all the radio shows.

Study, learn, and enjoy. We thank you for supporting the listener supported narrow path with Steve Gregg. Welcome back to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we've got another half hour ahead of us taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith, I would be glad to talk to you about those things. Our lines are full at the moment, but if you take this number down and call in a few minutes, a line might well have opened up. The number to call is 844-484-5737.

That's 844-484-5737. And for those of you in Southern California who listen to the program, I just want to announce that this Saturday night we have our meeting in Temecula that usually only happens about once a month and it's a Q and A. And if you'd like to join us, we'd love to see you there.

Just go to our website, thenarrowpath.com and look under announcements. Look up this Saturday night and you'll find the time and place. And that all remains, all that remains for you to do then is just show up. And so we'd love to see you there if you're available nearby.

All right. We're going to talk next to Deborah in Detroit, Michigan. Deborah, thanks for waiting.

Welcome. Hello. Hi. Hi, how are you? I'm fine.

Great. I was reading Revelation 1 and 10 and John said that he was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. And I was just wondering, is that Sunday or Saturday? Well, Sabbatarians say it's Saturday because they think he's talking about the Sabbath and the Sabbath is Saturday. But he doesn't say it was the Sabbath. He says the Lord's Day. And I don't know really what day he had mine except that in the very late part of the first century, in the early second century, the church fathers did begin to use the term the Lord's Day to refer to Sunday because they met on Sundays and they referred to Sunday as the Lord's Day in the church fathers, the early church fathers, even the Didache, I think uses that expression.

So, which is right around the turn of the first century. So, John may have, you know, we don't know if the term was used for Sunday as early as John's time, but it might have been. So, many people think that the term the Lord's Day is a reference to Sunday. But of course, Sabbatarians will always say it's a reference to the Sabbath because they think that the Sabbath is the Lord's Day. So, I get confused, like, should it say, keep my day holy, the Sabbath, so is it Sunday or is it Saturday?

I get confused about that, you know. Yeah, well, the New Testament doesn't place any obligation on Christians to keep the Sabbath. The Sabbath is not a New Testament command. It's an Old Testament command. And the Sabbath is Saturday, to be sure. But the New Testament makes it very clear that the Old Covenant is no longer binding upon those who are under the New Covenant. Okay.

All righty. So, the faith, seven day advent, is that a good faith or is that something that people should not practice? Well, seven day Adventists are often good people. In fact, a few years ago, having met seven day Adventists in many places over a period of maybe 40 years in my ministry, I would have said all of the seven day Adventist people I'd ever met were really nice people and probably good Christians. Since I started the radio show, and especially since I debated Doug Batchelor, I've heard from a lot of seventh day Adventists who don't talk like very good Christians.

I mean, they talk like very contentious, angry, hateful kind of people. That has not been my experience with seven day Adventists most of my life, but I guess I don't want to say seven day Adventists are good people and then have you run into one of these haters of which I've been surprised how many of them are and come after me. But, and I don't mind that they do because they don't have anything to base their view on in scripture. They follow a woman named Ellen G. White and many of them think she was a prophetess, but she was not a prophetess.

She was a good writer. She wrote some good things, some of them very edifying, but she taught a lot of things that are not biblical, including the necessity of observing the seventh day Sabbath. In fact, they believe that if you are not observing the seventh day Sabbath in the end, when the, when the, they believe that the United States is going to make a national law requiring people to worship on Sunday rather than Saturday. Now I know it sounds crazy and it is, but they believe there's going to be a national Sunday law that requires everyone to worship on Sunday and not on Saturday. They believe that at that time it'll be mandatory to worship on Saturday rather than Sunday because if you take, if you worship on Sunday, then you will be taking the mark of the beast and of course you should be lost. So although today most of them will say, well, you should be keeping the Sabbath, but that doesn't mean you're going to hell if you don't. But frankly, they believe you will go to hell, whatever hell they believe in, that you won't be saved if you don't worship on the Sabbath, at least after the national Sunday law is made. Now I'm not sure why an act, I'm not sure why an act would be damnable after a government makes a particular law when the same act is not damnable before that law is made. So I guess it's the government, not God, who decides what laws will send you to hell because at this point, Sabbatarians usually say, well, if you don't keep the Sabbath, you're in the wrong, but you could still be a Christian, still go to heaven, but they don't believe you'll go to heaven if you don't keep the Sabbath after this law is made.

So God somehow, I guess, just honors the state because when the state makes a law, that changes the status of sin as far as they're concerned. But that's, to my mind, as ridiculous as some other things that they have taught. But anyway, when I say they've taught some ridiculous things, many Christian groups have taught some ridiculous things and they're still decent groups, but I wouldn't recommend the Seventh-day Adventist because of my recent experience with them. I think a lot of them are very good people, but as far as their denomination goes, not everyone in it has a cultic-like relation with it, but some of them definitely do. Now when I say cultic, when I say cultic, I don't mean they're teaching damnable heresies. What I mean is if a group is cultic, it means they let somebody else interpret the scripture for them. And every Seventh-day Adventist in the world that I've ever talked to lets Ellen G. White interpret the scripture for them because they'll tell me the scripture says so-and-so, but of course it doesn't.

Ellen G. White said it does. And so they'll go with her rather than study the scriptures themselves. And I've never met, and I hate to say this because I've met some intelligent Seventh-day Adventists, I've never met one that knows even what exegesis of scripture means or can do any of it. Exegesis means studying the scripture in context, drawing from it the message that the writer wanted to bring out. That's how you understand the Bible responsibly. I've never met a Seventh-day Adventist who will exegete a passage because they can't hold their views if they do.

The Bible doesn't teach their views. All right, I appreciate your call. Let's talk to Betty in Atlanta, Georgia.

Betty, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Hello. Hi.

Hello. Oh, thank you. I was looking at Matthew 76 about casting your pearls before the swine.

Uh-huh. And could you exactly explain what that means? Because it goes from having a log in your own eye, you know, when people are telling their friends not to do something and they're doing the same thing. So did they go and change another subject? Yeah, I think the subject actually is changed somewhat there. You know, it's interesting that that chapter begins with Jesus saying, Judge not, that you be not judged. And yet he indicates you have to judge if you're going to know if someone's a swine or not.

I mean, if you're not going to cast your pearls before swine, how are you going to obey that unless you judge whether somebody qualifies or not as a swine? Obviously, when Jesus said, Judge not, that you be not judged, he's not making a general statement that we can't make any judgments. And in this case, he does point out we do have to make some judgments. In fact, later in the chapter, he says you have to be aware of false prophets.

You'll know them by their fruit. Well, obviously, that's judging. That's judging too. So Jesus is telling us to make judgments. There's a certain kind of judgment we shouldn't make, as you pointed out. If you've got a log in your eye, don't be judging your brother about the speck in his eye that you're a hypocrite.

But there are people whom you will have to judge to be unworthy of your continued attention in your outreach. Casting pearls before swine probably refers to presenting Christ, who is the pearl of great price, to people who have absolutely no interest or capability of appreciating him. You know, a pig doesn't know a pearl from a pebble.

A human does. A human knows that that pearl is worth a lot. The pig, he doesn't know a thing about the value of a pearl. He doesn't value it.

He doesn't know what it is. And therefore, don't waste it on him. And same thing, the next line is don't give what is holy to dogs. In the temple, there was food that was holy. It was only for the priests to eat. And if you took that and gave it to the dogs, the dogs don't know the difference between something holy and unholy.

They just ravenously eat up whatever you give them. So what Jesus is saying, there are people who will not have any appreciation for the value of what you have to give them. And when you find that this is true of somebody, stop trying to give it to them.

If you've been witnessing to somebody and they just hate the gospel, they don't want to hear anything about it, well, don't waste it on them. Okay. So we done completed that part of the Great Commission then.

If you put it out there and they don't do anything with it or don't want to hear it, you just move along. Yeah. Thank you very, very much for that. Okay, Betty. God bless you. Thanks for your call.

Okay. Michael from Watsonville, California. Hi, Michael. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Hi, Steve.

Good to hear you today. Yeah. So what do you know about Edgar Cayde, I know he was a, he was the sleeping, sleeping prophet.

Yeah. He was a guy who had, I guess, visions or dreams in his sleep that, uh, people wrote down and felt they were prophetic. Uh, I don't, I've never studied the man. I don't have any reason to believe that he was a, uh, a real prophet. Um, I, you know, there are Christians who've studied him and I've heard them suggest that he didn't hold to, you know, correct Christian teachings or whatever. Uh, to my mind he's, uh, his experience probably was occultic, but I say that as one who don't, I don't have the details on him. What denomination was he?

I don't know. I don't even know if he was a Christian. I think he was actually a minister or a pastor. I don't know anything about him. Yeah.

I mean, I've read things about him years ago, but I don't, I don't keep them in my mind. All right. Well, that's it for today.

Thank you, Steve. Okay, Michael. Thanks for your call. Bye now. Okay. Uh, John from Westminster, Massachusetts.

Welcome to the narrow path, John. Thanks for calling. Hi Steve. Can you hear me all right?

Yes sir. Okay. Um, I was looking for some advice for my wife. Uh, she has a friend who absolutely loves the Lord, but she lives with her unsaved boyfriend.

They sleep in separate rooms. Um, she's been aggressively trying to get him saved, but it, it doesn't seem to us like he's going to be. And I think my wife has tried to convince her to run, uh, because of temptations before, but she doesn't seem to understand and she might think it's okay to stay there. Uh, but she really does love the Lord.

So we were going to ask you, what would you say? You know? Well, what, um, why is she staying there? Why is she staying there honey? Well, she thinks she's in, I think she loves him and I think that she believes he is meant for her. They, they weren't engaged. Okay. Well, um, they were engaged. Yeah. And they broke off the engagement.

Okay. So it doesn't look like they're on the marriage track at the moment. So she's got to decide whether he's the one for her or whether Jesus is the one for her. It was pretty much the way it's going to go because although there's no sin in two people of opposite sex, living under one roof and sleeping separately, there's nothing specifically sinful about that. We're not just talking about people who are a couple of opposite sex living on a roof. We're talking about a formerly engaged couple who are still regarding themselves as boyfriend and girlfriend living in the same house. And, uh, even if they sleep in separate rooms, uh, if her, her boyfriend's not a Christian, uh, I don't know.

I don't know. I just wouldn't, I wouldn't trust the situation. Very few people would, uh, to tell you the truth. I don't know how good a Christian she is. You say she loves the Lord. A lot of, a lot of people have a real emotional fondness for Jesus, but that doesn't mean they have a real moral strength in the face of temptation. I think she really should get out of there.

For one thing, it's a terrible testimony. Uh, if people know she's a Christian, no, she's living with him. Even if she says, Oh, we don't sleep together. Most people are say, sure, sure.

You don't. Yeah, I believe that. You know, most people just will not believe that and I don't blame them.

I'm not sure I believe it, but maybe they, maybe they don't sleep together, but it's everyone will assume they are. And, uh, and therefore it will mean that people see her as a Christian woman who cares more about a non-Christian boyfriend than cares about how Christ is made to look by her life. Her testimony is, uh, is going to be very much compromised in the situation. Now, if he's not a Christian, then he certainly is not the one for her at this point. Uh, she should move out. If he becomes a Christian at sometime in the future, then they might get married and then she could move back in. But short of that, she's just, uh, she's just playing with temptation. And, uh, if not hers than his, maybe she's strong, but I mean, you can't expect a non-Christian man to be that strong. And, uh, and maybe she, she may not be as strong as she thinks. For example, if she was really strong, she'd probably walk away and get into another home and, and wait for him to come along to be someone qualified for her to marry. Um, I'm not really sure if this is just a financial situation she thinks is working out better for her or what, but, um, I mean, there's, there's not a verse in the Bible that says people cannot live under one roof if they're not married because sometimes multiple families live under one roof.

And, uh, you know, it's not, it's not out of where you live. It's a matter of the circumstances you're living under and what that does, what that looks like to others and what, uh, and what kind of temptations that presents. I think she's very unwise to be there and I don't think she should make excuses for it. I think she should just say, if Jesus is going to be first in my life, then no man is going to be in my life in any serious capacity who's not a follower of Jesus. And now if this man becomes a follower of Jesus, that's another story. But, uh, I think that she's, you know, she needs to remember what Jesus talked about. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off from you. He's, what he means is if you've got something that's very valued or very precious to you, but it's, uh, it's, it's not appropriate for a Christian, you need to be rid of it. And so I don't have any more to say about it because there's no, there's not a specific scripture says don't live under the same roof. There are scriptures that tell us to glorify God in all our behavior. And when you're bringing a reproach on Christ, that's not glorifying God.

So I think she should move out. Well, thank you, Steve. I appreciate that.

All right. Thank you for calling. God bless you, John. Uh, Barbara from Roseville, Michigan. Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling.

Oh, hi. I just wanted to comment on something cause I, I noticed, um, frequently people are always, um, asking you questions about women in the ministry and going to the book of Corinthians. And I just want to comment in terms of like Paul, the book of Corinthians as Paul is teaching, these are not commandments of God. This is a pastor's vision on how he wants his church to be conducted in the church was getting started. Like my church is old.

We have a church program and you know, saying the order of service, they didn't have a order of service. And many times people take Paul's teachings for the church as a commandment of God, as opposed to, there's a place where Paul even says, I will that women do this and I will that men hold up hands and whatever he said. And he specifically says that it's his will. And when he was teaching that the women should be silent, so said the law, which is correct.

But now women be president, you know, we have no such laws. So people, when they go there and they, he's teaching his vision for the church. My church has a vision, the choirs to wear robes. You're not supposed to walk across the front of the pool pit or whatever, but a lot of times people take it as commandments of God. When it's the will of a pastor, many of that teaching that needs to be separated on how to operate the gifts. Well, each church should be different. You know, if you have a young church or old church or mixed races, you know, you look at your church and you come up with sort of an order of service to have some order, but that stuff should not be looked at as the commandments of God, not all of it. And then there's a scripture somewhere that says that women are going to come past men or something. So this is all, I just wanted to add that because I'm all, it causes people confusion. They try to go there as if these are commandments and it's a pastor's vision quite often. And a pastor should have a vision for his church and an order. So I just wanted to say that.

Okay. Well, let me, let me just say something about that too. The verses in first Corinthians that you're referring to are first Corinthians 14, 34 through 36, correct? That's where Paul says, you know, they, if they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home and things like that. The next verse is verse 34. 37 in verse 37, Paul says, if anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

So I, I would be very, I mean, I could be, uh, I could render myself unspiritual or disqualify myself from being a prophet, I suppose by saying his commandments or his statements are not the commandments of the Lord. But he said, if anyone, then he said, we have no such, um, how does he say it? No such, no such custom. Yeah. Yeah. That's in chapter 11 when he talks about head coverings. Yeah.

When he talks about wearing head coverings or not, he says, we don't have any such customs. You're right. So customs at that time. And just like the women were trying to, I'll just say, get started with a women's ministry. They're about 3000 years too early. Now we have women's ministry, women's conferences.

They were just too early. They had a lot of zeal, but at that time women weren't even allowed to speak or something. So that was what he was teaching was accurate at that time on how to conduct the church, but not as a commandment, not all that, not, not to say everything, but some of those things are their customs and you can't go there.

Yeah. You've never heard me say that women have to be silent in church, um, all the time. If that's what you're, if you're thinking, I've said that I, the only thing I have said is that when it comes to being an elder, which is like being a pastor, Paul said, he doesn't, he doesn't allow women in that role.

And he said, right. And he said, well, well, if Paul says something, am I going to suggest that I know more than he does? He said, he doesn't allow, you have to separate commandments of God versus this man who's ordained in pastors.

He said, he said the elder must be the husband of one wife at one who rules his house. Well, now in Paul's view, which is Christ's, he says, I speak a great mystery. I speak of Christ in the church. He said, well, that's an elder. That's a, that's a pastor.

Yeah. Uh, the word is one that's over many, um, no, not in Paul's day. No, not in Paul's day. That may be true in some churches today. No, the word Bishop, the Greek word Bishop is episkopos, which means overseer. And Paul uses the word overseer episkopos, uh, interchangeably with the word pres-buteros, which means elder. And it's the elders and the, and the overseers that are told to shepherd the flock or pastor the flock in the new Testament. They didn't, they didn't set up the churches the way we do, uh, which, but they, but they only had elders as leadership. They didn't have an individual pastor, but the pastoral ministry was done by the elders and by the overseers.

And so Paul does get those qualifications for them. Anyway, I, yeah, I don't want to, um, argue with you because I got a feeling, uh, this is not just an academic point for you. I think, I think you've got some investment in it and I, and I don't mind, uh, discussing those scriptures in more detail, except that I'm off the air in about five minutes. And, uh, and there are lectures at my website on the subject. Uh, you may be interested in going to the lecture series called some assembly required at my website.

The website is thenarrowpath.com. And there's a series of teaching called some assembly required. And there's, there's a couple of, uh, lectures there called the roles of women in the church. And, uh, I do deal with all of these things, including the question of how much of what Paul said might've been custom, uh, and how much of it is based on eternal principle. But I appreciate you. Uh, I appreciate you bringing it up for conversation. Oh, okay. Well, thank you for listening to me. Sure.

God bless you, Barbara. Okay. You too. Bye. We'll talk again. God bless you. I'm Mary from Massachusetts.

Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling. I thank you for taking my call. Um, I have a question about, uh, a Bible verse. Um, well, two of them that I'm confused and I've been listening to your program earlier. So, um, what you said, um, I just want to get some clarification in Matthew 5 17. Yeah. When it says heaven and earth until heaven earth passed away.

Yeah. No, that one is the one that says that, um, I did not come to abolish the law of the prophet. I have not come to abolish, but to, um, fulfill.

So what is this talking about there? He was talking about fulfilling the law and the prophets fulfilling the old covenant. The old covenant was never meant to be permanent. It anticipated a new covenant. It anticipated the Messiah. You see, there was no Messiah in the old Testament and, uh, God promised he was going to send the Messiah and the Messiah would set things up the way they, that God wants them to be permanently. The old covenant law and prophets was a temporary system that would be, that would pass away when the Messiah would come and, uh, and fulfill it. Now fulfilling it would be like, like if there's a prophecy that says, uh, the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. There's a prophecy in Micah five, two that says that, but when Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he fulfilled that.

Okay. In other words, he, he is the thing that it was looking forward to. It is the thing that he, that he is the thing that was being predicted there. Now the law and the prophets both predicted the Messiah, the sacrifices and the feasts and things like that, the holy days, they were all types and pictures of Christ's sacrifice and Christ himself. So they pointed forward to Christ, just like the prophecies did. And so he came to fulfill the law and the prophets that is to be the thing that they anticipated.

That was the fulfilling of them. And so he said, not one job. He said until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle will pass from the law until all has been fulfilled. So he says, when all has been fulfilled, then it will pass away, but not one bit of it will pass away until it's all been fulfilled. Now, a lot of people get hung up on the statement till heaven and earth pass away, and it's not entirely clear what he meant by that because that term is used figuratively in a number of places in the Bible. But he did say that not one bit of the law would pass until it all passed, until it was all fulfilled. So if we don't have sacrifices anymore, then that has passed. And if even a jot or tittle of the law has passed, Jesus said, then it's all passed. So we don't have any part of the law that we are under because Jesus fulfilled it.

And when the law is fulfilled, it is no longer in force. I need to go. I wish I didn't have to cut off like that because this deserves more treatment, but I'm off the air in 15 seconds. You've been listening to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. We are listener supported, and you can write to us at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California 92593, or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. Let's talk again tomorrow. God bless you.