The Narrow Path 11/17

Music playing... Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. Thanks for joining us today. We are on daily, as we are right now, for an hour each week of the afternoon.

It's a live program, although some of you may be listening on a rebroadcast on some stations. It's a podcast hour and you're welcome to join us. If you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith or disagreement with the host you'd like to discuss, feel free to give me a call. The number is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. Our first caller today is Alan in Grass Valley, California. Alan, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Hi. My question is concerning Luke, chapter 18, where he talks to a rich man who asks him how he can inherit the kingdom of heaven. And it seems that he'd been preaching repentance is the answer up to that point. But he told him to sell all his goods and come and follow him.

And I'm wondering why it seems the bar was raised for this man. Well, repentance would include this. That is to say to repent.

What are we supposed to repent of? We're supposed to repent of our rebellion against God and come under his rulership, which is our rightful place. He owns us. You know, he made us and he owns us. And therefore, the fact that we have not been obedient to him is something that we have to repent of in order to get right with him.

We need to come back under his leadership. Now, that would mean that you cannot have anything else in your life that competes with his leadership. You might remember one man came to Jesus and said, you know, I'll follow you wherever you go, but let me first go say goodbye to those at my household. And Jesus said, well, no man putting his hand to the plow and looking back is worthy of the kingdom of God. In Luke 14, Jesus said, unless you forsake all that you have, you cannot be my disciple. So to repent means to instead of living for yourself, you're living for God. Instead of doing what your agenda is, you do what his agenda is. Now, if Jesus tells you to give away all you own and give it to the poor, well, if he's your king, then you obey that.

If he tells you, okay, give away half of it. See, Zacchaeus, for example, who was a dishonest tax collector until he met Jesus, said, I'm giving half of my goods to the poor and I'm going to repay those I've robbed fourfold. And Jesus said, salvation has come to this house. So he didn't make everyone give away 100 percent, but he gave separate instructions to each person. And he did so based upon his knowledge of what they would need. For example, Jesus knowledge that this man's riches were more valuable to him than obeying Jesus was proven true because the man, because he had riches, chose not to obey Jesus.

He chose his riches instead. So Jesus had him pegged, you know, and Jesus has us all pegged and he gives us all different instructions. But our repentance and coming into the kingdom of God involves our surrender of everything that we have on as our agenda and everything we own. And even of our own lives, if it comes to dying, that's what it involves, because that's what every person from the day we were created should have been doing. That is surrendering to God, not necessarily giving away all our possessions. Only if God tells you to do that, you know, but that a man is required to do whatever Jesus says is a given, since Jesus is our God and our creator.

And repentance is when a person decides that they're going to stop rebelling against the creator and start submitting. So once a person wants to submit to Christ, you know, this man said, what would it take me? And Jesus said, well, in your case, you're going to have to sell, you have to give it to the poor. You know, the guy was actually a pretty good man. Other than that, he'd been keeping the law of Moses all his life. He was a decent guy, a moral character, but Jesus had special instructions for him.

In fact, a special invitation. He said, sell what you have, give to the poor, and then come and follow me. Jesus didn't let everyone follow him.

Yeah, that was pretty special. Yeah, it's a special privilege, and the guy didn't want it. So it's clear that, you know, remember the man who had a legion of demons, he begged Jesus, I want to go with you, I want to go with you. And Jesus said, no, you go back to your house and tell your friends about what God has done for you. So not everyone was invited to walk around with Jesus.

And this man was given that invitation, but he didn't take it. So I think this may show that he hadn't repented. So the point is that repentance actually is something for which there will be evidence. If you've changed your mind on the matter that is most important, namely, who are you going to obey? Then it'll show up in your obedience to God and your surrender to his will. And this man was actually being tested on that very point. Would he do it?

If he did, he could prove that he had in fact repented, that he is now going to follow God instead of his own ways and his own possessions. Well, thank you very much. I think that's very clear. All right. Well, I appreciate your call very much, Alan. Thank you. God bless you. Bye now. Okay, John in Oregon City, Oregon.

Welcome to The Narrow Path, John. Hi, Steve. Can you hear me okay? Yes, but I'm going to need you to turn your radio off because I'm hearing you and me. Okay, there we go. Okay, so thank you. Here's my question.

Actually, it's kind of like two questions at once. The image and the stone in Daniel chapter 2, what do they represent? Well, Daniel actually gives the interpretation of that. He said that the head of gold of the image represented Nebuchadnezzar, or I think almost all scholars would agree, the Babylonian empire that Nebuchadnezzar was the leader of, because he said the chest of silver, it represents the nation that would conquer Babylon. So that'd be the media Persian empire. And then the belly of bronze would be the nation that would conquer them.

And that was the Grecian empire under Alexander. The image as a whole, what does it represent? Well, it represents a series of world empires from the time of Daniel's own time from Nebuchadnezzar on to the Roman empire, which is the fourth empire, the legs of iron and the feet of iron clay. And then the stone is said to be the kingdom of God. You see that in verse 44, he said, in the days of these kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.

It will not be left to others. And he says, and it will consume and break in pieces all these kingdoms, but it will never be destroyed. And then he said in the next verse, this is what the stone was that you saw.

The stone was the kingdom of God established during the time of the Roman empire, the fourth kingdom. Another question. Augustine, we know Augustine was all millennial. In fact, he's the one that made all millennialism a standard. Anyway, so how about Jerome? What was he, pre-millennial, all millennial?

Do you know? You know, I don't remember reading about Jerome's eschatology. You know, he's famous for, mostly for his translation of the Bible into Latin, but he, of course, he wrote other things. I don't remember if he spoke on the subject.

He might have. Many of the church fathers before Jerome, and perhaps even in his time, did write about their eschatology and they were pre-millennial. Here's what Jerome says about the stone. And it kind of, he identifies the image also pretty much. It's in Jerome's commentary on Daniel.

Okay. He wrote, he wrote, However, at the final period of all these empires of gold and silver and bronze and iron, a rock, namely the Lord and Savior, was cut off without hands that is made without corruption or human seed, or without copulation or human seed, and by birth from a virgin's womb. And after all the empires had been crushed, he became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. Yep.

Yeah, so he was on millennial. Wait a minute. That, that, that, that, if the stone hits, it says, at the final period of all these empires. Right. And what was the last of the empires?

The last of the empires, the ten toes, I believe represent the, like Revelation chapter 17, the ten kingdoms or ten kings of the end time. Now, why would you take it that way? Well, it just. I mean, well, look, look at the image. Look at, look at the way the image is described. It's a human image.

Its head is attached. All the empires, all the empires are, are, they're not Jewish. They are. Gentiles, yes. But that's. They're Gentiles. Right.

And that has nothing to do with what I was, the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that the head of gold was the Babylonian. The chest of silver was the media Persian, which followed immediately after the Babylonian because it conquered it. And then the next one was the belly bronze, which is the Grecian, which conquered the media Persian empire. And then the fourth kingdom conquered the Grecian and that's Rome. Then we don't read of any other conquering kingdoms or until the stone, which is the kingdom of God. And we're told that in the days of these kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom. So we have four empires, Babylonian, media Persian, Grecian and Roman.

And then we have the kingdom of God. Now, the legs of iron are identified as the fourth, the feet and the toes are not indicated to be something other than the fourth empire. There, there's no gap at the ankles. For example, there was not another empire that conquered Rome and became the feet. And there certainly isn't anything to suggest that the Roman Empire, which is the legs, is separated from its feet by 2000 years, because there'll be a revived Roman Empire in the end times that doesn't exist yet. So, I mean, where do you find a gap at the ankles there? I don't see one. Well, I was reading this American Standard Bible, the Catholic Bible.

And they don't even, they say that there's no Roman Empire in there at all because they don't want, because you know, during the Reformation, they were saying that Rome was that harlot on the beat, or the Roman Church was the harlot on the beat. So they didn't want to even identify it. So they would make the, after the... Okay, but I asked you something, but I asked you, where do you see the gap? I see the gap right there between the iron and the clay and iron. And why do you see a gap there? I mean, where in the passage do you see it? Not where do you import it, but where do you actually see it in the passage?

That's a good question. I see the gap, well, you know, there's this book, in fact, I had an epiphany, excuse me for having so many epiphanies, but when I came back from Israel, I told you I had an epiphany when I was in Israel in 1989. And when I came back, I started writing a book about that very epiphany. And I was studying Daniel, and I found a gap between, you know, it speaks in both Daniel and Daniel chapter 8.

Okay, let me jump in here. It speaks of the little horn, and no, it speaks of Alexander the Great, and then all of a sudden it speaks of the little horn. Well, we know the little horn represents the Antichrist. No, no, no, no, no, we do not, we do not.

Why would we believe that? In chapter 7, are you talking about in chapter 8? I don't care about Jerome, I don't care about Jerome, I care about Daniel. Daniel wrote it, Jerome didn't, okay? So let's look at the book itself and not worry about what anyone has said about it. What I say about it, what you say about it, what Jerome said about it, what anyone says.

Let's just look at the passage itself. We have... Let me finish the story. Well, no, I don't want to hear the whole story. No, wait, wait, wait, I don't want to hear the story.

I want to talk about the subject, okay? If you're simply telling me that you see a gap between the ankles and the feet in the image in Daniel 2, because you had an epiphany, meaning a divine revelation about it, well, okay, who can argue against divine revelations? You'll just have to believe that until you decide that maybe Daniel wrote what he really meant instead of something that you feel you have a revelation. All right, I got to take another call because, you know, you leaped away from the text and went to a private revelation that you claim to have had, which I cannot... I can't denounce your private revelations, but I can't confirm either. All I have to go with is the Bible itself. And as I read it, the feet are of one piece with the legs, and there's no mention of any gap between, for example, the ancient Roman Empire and some future revived Roman Empire, which the dispensationalists have created in their imaginations.

There's nothing there, nothing in the Bible about a revived Roman Empire in any part of the Bible. All right, but I appreciate your call, and it's too bad we had to get off the topic. Okay, let's go to Ronnie in Dallas, Texas. Ronnie, welcome to The Narrow Path. Oops. Yeah, you need your radio turned on.

I'm fine, thank you. Hey, the reason I'm calling, I didn't want to ask any questions, and actually I was trying to tell the guy that what happened that Saturday, I was listening to your program that was pre-recorded, and it was about the gentleman that needed to find somebody to pray with him. Well, I'm part of a prayer ministry at our church, and I just want to give out the numbers so that if he wanted to contact somebody and to pray with him on a regular basis. Yeah, that's John. That's John from Frisco, Texas you're referring to. Yeah, well, he's not that far from me, but I mean, so if I give you my number, could you have him call me and then, because we ask to pray for people in New York every morning and on Saturdays. Ronnie, let me jump in here.

Let me just say this. I don't know how to reach John from Frisco unless he's listening, so if you want to give out the phone number, and if he is listening, he can take it down and call you, okay? Okay, okay, I'll give it to you. It's 469-487-4926, and he can call me at any time. 469-487, did you say 487? And what's the rest? 4926. 4926, okay.

If I hear from John from Frisco and he wants to get that number, and he didn't take it down, I've got it here. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ronnie. I appreciate your call. God bless you. Okay, Ephraim from Indiana, welcome to The Narrow Path.

Thanks for calling. Thank you, brother Steve. Last week, or a couple of weeks ago, I'm not sure if you told us that the word church was only found two times in the Gospels. I'm not sure if you... Only two times in the Gospel is Matthew, yeah. Yeah, Matthew 16 and 18. And Matthew 18, yeah. Okay, since then, I've been thinking, so... And I found three more times as a single word church, 1 Corinthians and... Yeah, but those aren't in the Gospels. I was talking about in the Gospels, yeah.

Right, yeah, yeah. So, I've been a Christian for like over 25 years, but I had no idea how did we get started, you know, the services as it is, and if Jesus didn't tell us a whole lot about the church or, you know, how to, you know, I don't even... Well, if you... I feel uncomfortable asking you because you always get in the Scriptures, that's what I'm looking for. Can we base our, you know, the way we start, we walk in, we pray, we welcome everybody, we, you know, you know, right? Right, yeah, none of those practices are prescribed by Jesus or even by the apostles. Now, there's nothing wrong with doing those things. I mean, who could criticize praying or walking into the church building?

I can't. I think those are fine things. If we sing, we take an offering, we have a sermon, nothing in the Bible forbids those things, but those are just the customary things that church began to do at some point as it developed in the centuries. Jesus did not actually describe his disciples having church meetings per se, not that he's against it. I'm just saying he didn't talk about a congregational meeting. He did indicate in many ways that he expects the company of disciples to be interactive with each other and probably to meet just like families meet, but he didn't ever indicate any liturgy. He didn't ever indicate any particular religious behavior with a group of people, and that's what we now have in the churches. Now, I'm not saying Jesus would be against it.

I'm just saying we can't take any of it from his teachings because he didn't give anything. As far as we know, Jesus didn't even indicate that the church would have religious meetings per se. Now, in the book of Acts, when Jesus ascended and the Holy Spirit was given, we can see that the apostles formed the church in Jerusalem and eventually other churches began to form outside Jerusalem as the Gentiles began to be evangelized in other parts of the world.

And we do see them having certain, we don't see protocols per se, but we do see activities. In Acts chapter 2, excuse me, toward the end of the chapter there, it tells us about how the disciples would get together, that is, all the believers would get together, and they would, it says in verse 42, they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship and the breaking of bread and in prayers. Now, we're not told that this happened in religious meetings.

They may have. The apostles' teaching sounds more like a classroom situation, but it could well have been a meeting much more like what we picture as a church meeting. We have to be careful not to import our visions of church into passages that don't necessarily describe them.

We often, you know, naturally enough, what we're familiar with, we read it right into the passage because we figure they must have done things the way we did. But they did receive teaching from the apostles and that was probably in some kind of gathered assembly. Now, whether they did that in the same places that they were breaking bread and praying and fellowshipping, we aren't told.

This probably refers mostly to a whole social life and a whole community life of the believers. I don't know that we should say that this is a description of a church meeting, but they certainly did meet. I mean, how could they all sit, how could 3,000 people sit under the apostles' teaching unless, I'm sure the apostles didn't go house to house and give private instruction to all 3,000 people, so they must have met for that. And in meeting, they broke bread together. Now, did they do that in the same meeting hall where they received the teaching?

It could be. We don't know exactly where they were meeting. Sometimes they were meeting in the temple porches. Sometimes they were meeting in homes, we're told, from house to house, it says. So we see, that's verse 46, they continued daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house. So it sounds like maybe the apostles did the teaching in the temple and the breaking of bread part took place house to house and they also were involved in fellowship, which certainly is not necessarily restricted to a church meeting. In fact, I get most of my fellowship outside of church meetings. When you go to a church meeting, you often don't get much fellowship at all. Some do, some people do, but others sometimes just go and hear the sermon and go away and don't get any fellowship. Fellowship is a relational thing that takes place in your social life as a Christian with other Christians.

And then in prayers. Now I believe they did, I think they did pray in groups, though I don't know if all 3,000 of them at one big meeting, like at Joel Osteen's church or something like that, in a big old, you know, huge auditorium, if 3,000 people all prayed in one meeting, they might have, or they might have broken up into smaller groups to pray for each other. In other words, this is, we don't read anywhere of Jesus or the apostles mandating a certain protocol or liturgy for church. However, it has become, I should say, logistically helpful for Christians to meet on a certain day of the week in a certain place and do as many of these things as possible together only because our lifestyles these days don't seem to allow as much for us to get together with people in smaller groups or on a daily basis.

Now some people who are not employed may very well be able to get together on a daily basis with other people. I know during the Jesus movement Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa where I went every night of the week, they had meetings every night of the week. Now they were teaching meetings in worship times. They didn't break bread or have group prayer or anything like that.

Of course there would be a prayer. But they met every night. And that was largely because we were a bunch of teenagers and unemployed.

Or if we were employed, at least we didn't have family obligations, wives and children and so forth to take care of. So we were able that night to go and go to these long meetings every night. It was a wonderful thing. I wish we could still do that. I don't know of any church that's doing that right now. But it was during a revival and it was great. And I think that it may have been that way in the book of Acts. Also, though, again, I have the tendency to import what I'm familiar with, the visions of that, into the text.

I don't want to do that. They may not have done that. But in answer to your question, the only real description of a church order that we have is in 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and 1 Corinthians 11 too. And there's about church arrangement like leadership. We have some things about that in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. But we don't really have a passage anywhere that describes a church meeting in detail in such a way that we know how to walk into a building and from start to finish know exactly what the apostles did. But we're at liberty.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there's liberty. So as long as spiritful people who love Jesus get together and do what the Spirit leads them to do, then I think they're doing a good thing. I think it's entirely scriptural. In other words, the Bible does not nail down for us a standardized liturgy. The idea of a church liturgy, of a church calendar, you know, sacred days and things like that, all of that stuff came up later after the apostles were dead and in some cases many generations later. They're not really part of the biblical idea of a church meeting.

On the other hand, to say that they're not in the Bible doesn't mean that they're bad. So again, I believe that as Paul said, and he said this in 2 Corinthians 3.17, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there's liberty. The main thing about a church meeting is for the Spirit of the Lord to be there and guiding.

And if that is the case, then there's liberty to do. You could do something different every Sunday. You don't have to have a weekly, you know, structure. You can, but you want to make sure you're walking in the Spirit and being led by the Spirit.

That's the most important thing in a church. Listen, I need to take a break here, and so thank you for joining us today. We have another half hour coming up, and this is just a notification at the bottom of the hour that The Narrow Path is a listener-supported ministry. If you'd like to help us pay the radio bills, and that's where donations go is to the radio bills, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California 92593, or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com, under announcements.

I'll be back in 30 seconds. Small is the gate, and narrow is the path that leads to life. Welcome to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.

Steve has nothing to sell you today, but everything to give you. When the radio show is over, go to thenarrowpath.com, where you can study, learn, and enjoy with free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. We thank you for supporting the listener-supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. See you at thenarrowpath.com.

Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we're live for another half hour taking your calls. If you'd like to join us, the lines are full right now, so you can't call in at the moment, but if you call in in a few minutes, you might find a line is open for you. The number is 844-484-5737.

That's 844-484-5737. Now, we had planned later this month on the 28th a meeting that we usually have only every couple months in Buena Park, California. I just want to announce to anyone who hasn't seen the website announcement that that meeting for this, what, a week from Saturday, I guess it is, is now canceled. We're going to cancel it anyway because it's so close to Thanksgiving. We find that when we have meetings close to Thanksgiving, they're usually not very well attended.

But then, of course, now in California here, there's an alleged danger of COVID if people get together, so we're being asked to not do that. But we were planning to cancel that meeting anyway. Just want to make note, if you were thinking of going there and you haven't noticed at our website that we canceled the meeting, we just want you to know so you don't show up and find no one there. All right, let's talk to Al in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Al, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Thank you, Steve.

It's good to talk to you. Question, always been taught that upon accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior, your name is written down in the last book of life. What I'm looking for is a place where Scripture says that. I see where he will blot your name out in Exodus, he says. I think he also says in Revelation 3.5. And he also says in Revelation 13.8 and even 17.8 that he knew you before the foundation of the world, and the book of life is written in there. So I'm just curious as to where it says, Scripture says he writes it down. Yeah, I don't know of any place in the Bible that tells of him writing our names in the book. There are references to people having their names in the book. Yes. But it doesn't say when they were written, except as you said, in Revelation 13.8, it talks about those who have been written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Yes. Now, from the foundation of the world may function to tell us when they were written down, that at the foundation of the world, God wrote down the names of everyone in the book. Or from the foundation of the world may speak of the whole historical process that people have had their names added to the book from the beginning of the world till the present time as they've turned to God, as they become saved people, that their names are added, and their names have been written, this company's names have been written from the beginning of the world could suggest, not that everybody's name was in there from the beginning of the world, but that the first names were added there. And as you go through history from that point on, more names have been added. So that, you know, there's names in there that have been written there since the foundation of the world. I don't, you know, I honestly am not really sure, but I do know that the fact that Revelation 3 says that there is a danger of some having their names blotted out of the book of life is, it raises questions. If they're actually names not going to be in there because they didn't endure to the end. Uh... Steve, if I would suggest that every person who's ever created names were in the last book of life, and upon a time where they were drawn to Him, they chose not to accept Him, He does blot it out. For me, understanding predestination and those verses that deal with that, and the fact that He wishes none should perish, someone who has aborted, someone who maybe don't have all their senses as far as mentally, whatever I'm trying to say, not in the right terms, but He's a fair God, He's a just God, and their names are there. But there's a point in time, if they don't accept Him and He won't make them, He does blot it out.

Is that way out in Westfield somewhere? I can't really think of anything that would make that an invalid interpretation of the limited data we have. In fact, it might be the easiest way to understand all the passages correctly. In other words, you're saying the book of life simply refers to the book of people who live, and everyone who's ever lived are counted as being initially in the book of life, but they can be blotted out by their rejection of Christ and so forth. I can't affirm that that's what is the case, but I've heard that before, and it makes sense to me.

There are a number of different views about this I've heard, but there's so limited data on it in the Bible, it's not the easiest thing to affirm with certainty that that's the way we should see it. But if you're asking, is that a crazy thing to say? Not at all.

Given the data on the subject, which is very limited, it would not be at all crazy to take that position about it. Well, don't misunderstand me. I'm not a Calvinist. I don't buy partial atonement. I believe He died for all, and therefore, this helps me understand. If I look at it this way, this is for me.

I look at all the predestination verses. They're not hard to understand in light of what I just said, but I just want to thank you for your ministry and thank you for taking my call. Well, thank you for calling, Al.

It's great to talk to you. Bye now. I think I have some friends who are moving to Knoxville, Tennessee. Maybe I'll have to put them in touch with you if they get there. They're leaving California.

They are talking at least about going that direction. Okay, let's talk to Clark in San Diego, California. Clark, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Clark? Yes. Welcome. You're on the air. Yes.

Thank you for taking this call. Steve, last week you talked about more or less paid ministry. I have a question on that.

Okay. If you have a young minister who is married and has a family, little kids, two or three little kids, if he is not paid, how does he support himself? Well, I was in that very position. I got married when I was 19, and I had a child by the time I was 20. About the time I was 20, I had a child. So I was a young minister with a wife and child, and I just figured that if God wants me to be supportive of the ministry, he'll support me.

Now, in other words, that I won't have to charge. Now, when I was actually starting out, I was not in full-time ministry, so I actually worked part-time, and I got some income that is, you know, surprise income, because I never knew where it was coming from, through the ministry, as people would make donations. They would give me gifts for my support, and then I would also earn some of it by taking a side job. But as the ministry began to lay greater demands upon my time, eventually I didn't have time to take a side job, and I was in full-time ministry. Then I had to just trust God completely for unexpected gifts and so forth. And I have to say, that was 50 years ago when I started. I've lived 50 years without any salaries from any source, any guaranteed income from any source, just living by faith. I have a comment. You lived 50 years just on faith?

Yes. That speaks pretty well for you. Not for me, for God. No, that actually speaks well for God, because it's actually God that comes through there. I have not always had great faith, not at all. In fact, I don't know that I have great faith even now. I don't claim to have great faith. I just claim to have a God who's faithful to keep His promises. So I just set my life up and my convictions up in such a way as to leave it to God to keep His promises. If that takes great faith, then I guess that's great faith.

Anyone should be able to have that kind of faith, because you either believe God tells the truth or you don't. Jesus said, seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you, meaning all the things you need. Of course, I did have to follow all of Scripture, including the part where Paul says having food and clothing, we will with these things be content, because I've had to be content with not much more than that a lot of the time.

But let me just say this. If you know a young minister who's pastoring a church, and he's in full-time ministry, well, if I were in that position, and I was not, if I was in that position, I think what I would tell the church is, I'm going to serve the church for free, but obviously I need money from some source, and I'll just trust God to provide it. If this church wants to give me some money once in a while or monthly or however you want to do it, I will never turn money down when it's given to me freely, but I'm freely giving. Jesus said, freely you've received, freely give.

That's what He said to ministers. So as a minister, I cannot sell the Word of God. I can't even sell ministry. Remember what Peter said to Simon the sorcerer, your money perish with you because you thought the gift of God could be purchased with money. Yeah, I don't believe in selling the ministry or anything.

That cost me nothing. So, but on the other hand, I don't discourage people who want to give, and a church that wants to keep a minister available to it would be wise to contribute to his support adequately so he doesn't have to do less ministry and take side jobs. But I mean, God, God decides those things. You know, if the, if a young minister says to the church, I'm going to serve freely, but of course my family has to be supported. I'm not asking you to support it. I'll trust God to support it, but you may want to contribute and that's fine. You know, my, my service to this church will not be connected to any money that this church gives me because I'm not working for a church.

Ultimately, I'm working for God, and he's the one who provides for me. Now, if the church doesn't help him out and money doesn't come from anywhere else either, then there's a couple ways he can go. He could get a part-time job to supplement his income, which is what I did for about 13 years, but I wasn't pastoring a church. I was in ministry, but not full-time. So I would think the church would be wise to, you know, to regularly give to him. What I think would be best.

Well, I don't know if this is best, but this is what I would certainly recommend. This is what George Mueller did. He was pastoring a church as a young man, a young father, and he felt he should not charge a salary. So he just put a box in the back of the church and said, listen, I'm not going to take any money from this church.

Although they were giving him a salary, he turned it down. And he said, if you feel led of God to put money in this box, you know, we'll live off of that. And so that way, he didn't have to get a paycheck from an organization called a church.

The real church, the people of the body of Christ, were actually able to support him as God laid it on their hearts. Now, I want to make this clear, and I hope I made it clear. I don't remember when I talked about this recently, but because I talk about it from time to time, I have a whole chapter on this in my new book. But, you know, I don't judge anyone who doesn't do it this way. You know, if somebody says, well, you know, I want to serve God, but, you know, I can't do it without money, and I don't really believe that I can fully trust God about this without having someone, you know, with skin on who's promised to pay me every month. Well, I don't judge him. I mean, to his own master, he stands or falls.

I've never judged anybody who didn't want to live the way that I want to live. But I do believe that the way I live is the way that, first of all, Jesus lived. I don't think anyone ever wrote him a paycheck from any source. I don't think the apostles received a paycheck from any corporate bank account anywhere either.

I think people supported Jesus, and people supported the apostles, and people have always supported the ministry when it's been God's ministry. See, one thing about this is if God doesn't support it, then maybe that's a good idea that you're in the wrong business. That's one way to look at it. Another way is the IRS starts giving you a bad time.

You've got another problem there, right? Well, that's an interesting thing, because if you don't ask for money, and people give you money, that's non-taxable. Yeah, but the IRS is not going to say, you've got to be kidding me, right?

Oh, yeah. Frankly, if I was ever audited, they just would have a hard time believing this. I've lived for 50 years without ever receiving a paycheck from any source. And I don't take money from speaking engagements or anything like that. But, I mean, neither did Jesus. I just figured Jesus and the apostles are the guide to this for me.

People can take more traditional ministry as their guide if they want to. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your answer. Enjoy your program. God bless you. Thank you, bye now. Okay, John in Jackson, Wyoming.

Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Hey, Steve. The Christmas season is going to be quickly upon us, and I'm sure there's going to be many stories about the birth of Jesus. In your opinion, how important is the virgin birth? And I'll hang up and listen.

Okay, okay. Well, I think the virgin birth is significant because it tells us how it is that Jesus was more than a mere man. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, then Mary either had had sex with Joseph or with some other man, and therefore Jesus was, strictly speaking, a man and nothing more.

Just like you or me, you know, we were born of a natural human couple who copulated and produced a baby, and that baby is as fully as human as they are and nothing more. Now, if God, however, was one of the parents and a woman, a human being, was another parent, then that baby has something from God and something from man. That is, you know, he's come through the human family, through a human mother who has an actual genealogy, going back to Adam, but he's also got a part of him that's not from human source, but from divine source. And this, I think, is what really justifies our calling him the Son of God. Now, there's a traditional view that Jesus was the Son of God from eternity past. Well, I'm open to that, but I don't see it in the Bible. The Bible doesn't ever tell us that Jesus was the Son of God from eternity. It tells us he was the Word of God and even that he was God or in the form of God. I mean, we're told that he was divine.

There's not a question about that. But as far as the term Son of God, we don't actually find anything in the Scripture telling us that he was the Son of God from eternity past. But we do have this interesting passage of the angel speaking to Mary and announcing to her that she was going to have a baby.

And Mary said to the angel, this is in Luke 1, 34 and 35. In Luke 1, 34, Mary said to the angel, how can this be since I don't know a man? In other words, I've not had sex with a man. I don't have a husband. She's not yet married.

And how can I have a baby? That's what she's asking. And the angel answers and said, the Holy Spirit will come upon you. The power of the highest will overshadow you. Therefore, meaning for that reason, also the Holy One who is to be born from you will be called the Son of God. So according to the angel, the reason that Jesus is called the Son of God is because Mary didn't have a human husband.

But the power of God overshadowed her and provided the genetic information that a man otherwise would have provided. And therefore, because of that, her sons are going to be called the Son of God. Now there may be other reasons to call him the Son of God, but this is the only reason the Bible tells us that he's called that. And so I would say the virgin birth apparently is a fairly essential warrant for recognizing Jesus as more than human. I mean more than just another son of Adam, though he was that too through his mother. But he's also the Son of God because of the virgin birth.

So that would be my understanding of the significance of that. All right, let's talk to Rich from Spokane, Washington. Rich, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Hey, yeah, Steve. Thanks. God bless you for your show.

And this is going to be really simple. Why did they call Simon a zealot? OK, well, there's a political party called the zealots, and I think I think all New Testament scholars would agree that by calling him Simon's zealot or the zealot, it's telling us that he came from that kind of a background. He had been part of the zealot party. Be like calling somebody a Democrat or a Republican or a libertarian. You know, so, you know, if if Jesus had, you know, someone who's been part of the Democrat Party, he might be called so-and-so the Democrat, especially if the if he is the only one in the episode group that had been a Democrat.

So, I mean, if there had been several or something, then maybe it wouldn't be a nickname that would stick. But, you know, if if Jesus' disciples were mostly libertarians and one of them was a Republican, they might call him Joe the Republican because he stands out from the others in that way. So the zealot party was actually a very militant party, kind of a sort of a Antifa kind of a party in a way. Just kind of they were attacking Roman soldiers.

They were trying to drive Rome out through guerrilla warfare and things like that. Because of their faith? Because they had faith in God? Well, possibly, possibly.

It's hard to know. I mean, they were they were freedom fighters. OK, now, freedom fighters might might be motivated by their faith. In other words, they might be zealous, observant Jews who love God and love Israel and think that God wants those Romans driven out.

And so they're, you know, they're zealous, religious freedom fighters. Or they might just be secular minded Jews who don't like being crushed under the heel of a Roman oppressor and they're ready to rise up against them. So it could be I mean, probably among the zealots, there probably were, you know, believing Jews and and and secular Jews. Lots of lots of Jews were pretty secular in their day and day to day life and motivation. So so it wasn't strictly a religious party, but it was kind of I mean, it started by it was started by a guy named Judas of Galilee in six in six A.D. And he was he held that it was unlawful for a Jew to pay tribute to Caesar because that's acknowledging Caesar as their king when in fact, God is their king. So Simon Zelody's I'm sorry, excuse me, Judas of Galilee, who founded the party certainly had religious motivations. But I can't say that after he was killed and he was he was killed before Jesus ministry began, you know, the party that followed him. Some of them were probably following him for religious motivations, others just because they were freedom fighters who didn't like being oppressed.

Sure. So it's not not to drag this out, but so it's not necessarily it was necessarily a good thing that he was a zealot. I guess that's my point is to be zealous.

Is that like some sort of right now? If we call somebody a zealot today, especially a Christian, call him a zealot. We're we're probably saying something relatively good about he's zealous. You know, he's got a lot of zeal. You know, I mean, the Bible tells us that we should have zeal for holiness, zeal for God and so forth. But the word zealot, while it could mean that even in biblical times, it was used as a title like it was with Simon Zelot's. It's almost certainly a reference to him being in the zealot party.

Before he followed Jesus. All right. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. I appreciate your call. God bless you, Rich. OK, our next caller is Bob in Hillsboro, Oregon. Bob, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Hi, Steve. Yesterday you had a caller that was asking a question about the rich young ruler. You made a distinction between entering the kingdom of God and inheriting the kingdom. Yes. And I wanted to know if you could speak about that a little bit. And specifically, you said that there would be those that would receive a crown, a throne and a scepter. And I was wondering where that was in scripture. And my reception isn't very good. So I'm just going to listen on the radio. OK. OK, thank you.

Yeah. And I don't think anywhere in the Bible says that we'll receive a scepter, though I did say that. The Bible certainly tells about us sitting on thrones and also having crowns and a crown and a throne and a scepter all go together. All emblems of ruling. I don't know that we'll have literal crowns or literal thrones or or certainly literal scepters.

I mean, one could one could remove the word scepter from that list without changing anything about my statement. The point I was making is that to inherit the kingdom is what happens when Jesus comes back. And those who have been faithful unto death have now have the crown of life.

And I sit on thrones with him and reign with him. It's like when a when a prince inherits the kingdom of his father. Usually it's because the father has died and he's turned or in his lifetime, he's become old. He's turned it over to his son. He now is ruling where his father once was. He's inherited that just like a person might inherit a home or a fortune from a father, a king leaves the kingdom to his sons. And so the the prince, the children of the king, and that's what we are, will inherit what children of a king inherit. That is the kingdom.

And so we'll reign with him is really what the doctrine of the scripture is. Now, entering the kingdom is something that we do now. And it's evident in scripture that we have already entered the kingdom in the sense of becoming subjects of the king. You see, the king, a kingdom is comprised of two elements, a king and a people who are his subjects. And if you have both a king and his subjects, you have a kingdom. If you have people but no king, you have no you have no kingdom. If you have a king but no subjects, you don't have a king.

So having a king and subjects, a society governed by a king is a kingdom. But you can see that when we enter God's kingdom, we're leaving the kingdom of darkness and coming into the kingdom of God as subjects to him. He's the king. All authority in heaven and earth has been given to him. And we acknowledge that, embrace him as lord and king. And we are his servants, his followers. But he has said that those who are faithful in this role, when he comes, will be rewarded with rulership. Remember the parable in the 19th chapter of Luke about the nobleman who went away to a far country to receive a kingdom and to return. And he left while he was in his absence, he left responsibilities in the hands of his servants, gave them, you know, gave 10 of them one pound each to invest for him. And after a long time, he came back having received his kingdom.

And then he called them and said, OK, you were faithful. You produced, you know, five pounds from the one pound I gave you. You rule over five cities and you another servant, you made 10 pounds out of the one I gave you.

You rule over 10 cities. See, these the man goes away to be to be received his kingdom. And that's what Jesus did. Jesus went away to sit on his to receive the throne that he's now seated on and he'll come back. But in the meantime, those of us who are in his kingdom are his subjects and we are stewards of his stuff and we are aiming to make him to enrich him through our labors. And then when he comes back, he rewards with rulership those who have been faithful. So that's the difference I'm making between entering the kingdom is that's what we do now and inheriting the kingdom. Is that what happens when Jesus comes back?

And Jesus made that very clear, for example, in Matthew 25. I mentioned yesterday that when the son of man returns in his glory and sits on the throne of his glory with all his holy angels, and then he'll call all the nations before him and separate them as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And then later on, it says he'll say to the sheep, inherit the kingdom that was prepared for you from the foundation of the world. So that's that's what happens when Jesus comes back. We inherit the kingdom.

And that means in the capacity of rulers, where we enter the kingdom in the capacity of not rulers, but of actually subjects. All right. We're out of time for the tape, but I appreciate all who've called. You've been listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast.

My name is Steve Gregg. We are on Monday through Friday for an hour doing the same thing at the same time. We pay for the time on the radio. We don't have sponsors. We don't take commercial breaks. We just depend on listeners. If you'd like to help us stay on the air, you can write to the Narrow Path P.O.

Box 1730 Temecula, California, 92593. Or go to our Web site, the narrow path dot com. Thanks for joining us. Let's talk again tomorrow. God bless you.