The Narrow Path 07/10/2026

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour. We're on every day Monday through Friday, and it's hard to believe this is already Friday again. It just seems like it was just Friday six or seven days ago. It's amazing how quickly this goes. This is the last chance you have to call the program before next week, if that means anything to you. We do have one line open. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith you'd like to bring up for conversation, we take those on the air. Also, any disagreement you might have with the host, we'll take those on the air too. Be polite and use good language and we will have a good conversation. The number to call is 844-484-5737. It looks like our last empty line just filled up, but if you call in a few minutes, these lines do open up. The number is 844-484-5737. Our first caller today is Dwight calling from Denver, Colorado. Hi Dwight, good to hear from you again. Welcome.
Dwight: Thank you, Steve. We're part of a home church and have been for many years. If I understand Paul correctly in 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35, women are not to ask questions during the home church service, but rather they're to ask their own husbands at home. Is that correct?
Steve Gregg: That is in fact the instructions that Paul gave to the women and to the church in Corinth. Now, there's a couple things we need to ask ourselves. One is, what was his rationale for this? It may be that it's a very important thing for us to observe at all times, or was it something because of issues that were going on in the church there and for their sakes needed to change it? In some manuscripts in verse 34, it says, "Let your women keep silent in the churches," not just let women keep silent in the churches as if that's a general rule, but this church needs to make sure that their women keep silent. Now, that's not in the Alexandrian text, it just says "let women," but the Textus Receptus says "let your women keep silent in the churches," which sounds like he's saying, "Okay, your women in the Corinthian church need to learn how to behave and conduct themselves well in church." That is, of course, also what he has said about many men. He said those who are speaking in tongues need to be more orderly. They need to do it one at a time, only a few in the church service, only if there's an interpretation. Same thing with the prophets. And the women need to behave themselves too. We don't know to what degree Paul would have been a stickler for those exact numbers about prophets and such in a church that was well-ordered and where everything was done decently and in order, which is how he concludes the chapter in verse 40: "Let all things be done decently and in order." So, there's a real possibility that the women in the church in Corinth were being disorderly and apparently had something to do with asking questions. Now, I've heard teachers say, "Well, the women and the men sat across the aisle from each other in those days and the women would call out to her husband on the other side in the middle of service, 'What's the pastor mean when he said that?'" I've heard it that way, but that's only somebody's guess. It's also possible that the women were interrupting the teaching with questions and perhaps not very pertinent ones. Who knows? In any case, there seems to have been something disruptive about what the women were doing. Now, it's possible that Paul would have given the same instructions even if the women were not particularly disruptive, if he just felt like women shouldn't speak in church at all. But I think that wasn't his position because three chapters earlier, in chapter 11, he made it very clear that women could pray or prophesy with their head covered, which meant, again, following the decorum of the church and the local customs, the women should not do things disorderly, but they could pray or prophesy. He doesn't say in chapter 11 that they could do so in the church, but Paul's opinion in chapter 14 seems to be that prophecy is for the edification of the church. That seems to suggest that their prayers and prophecies could be uttered in the church if their head were covered. In other words, it's difficult to know how strict and inflexible Paul would be in a church where this kind of disorderly conduct was not happening. One reason I think it's fair to ask that question is also in chapter 11. We read that people were rather selfish and disruptive at the communion service. So, some were taking too much wine and too much bread, resulting in there not being enough food for everybody. Some were going away hungry and some were going home drunk, he said. And then he tells them, "Listen, eat your meals at home before you come to church." Now, that's a very clear instruction from Paul: eat your meals at home before you come to church. But shall we take that as a guide for all of us? We need to eat our meals at home before we come to church? What if we're fasting? What if dinner's going to be cooking while we're at church and we're going to eat it afterwards? Do we have to eat a meal before we go to church? I think we have to understand what Paul is saying is because of this disruptive conduct, because you people don't seem to have any self-control, how about avoid the temptation of doing this by satisfying your hunger before you come to church? In other words, Paul's instructions are sometimes very much tailored to the immaturity and the disorderliness of the church in Corinth. So, it's hard to be very legalistic about this, and I don't prefer to be legalistic about things anyway. For example, I don't think women should be pastors, but if I walk into a church and a woman happens to get up and turns out she's one of the elders, I don't agree with her being an elder, but I'm not going to turn over the tables and grab a small whip and drive everyone out. That's not my approach to such things. I don't know that God is that legalistic. I think what we have in 1 Corinthians is that Paul is saying the church should be orderly. When it's not orderly, nobody is being edified. The public meeting should be edifying to everybody. Any distracting, disorderly conduct should simply not be allowed. And so Paul gives very specific corrections to the Corinthians about how to achieve that ideal. We also read Paul about half a dozen times in his letters telling us "Greet one another with a holy kiss." Well, most of us don't greet with a holy kiss, and we're probably not rebellious against Paul's words when we do that. We realize that's the way people greeted each other in that culture. In our culture, we're more likely going to shake hands or hug each other, but not as often are we going to greet with a kiss. But we recognize we're not disobeying the spirit of the instructions. The instructions were actually given to people in a certain cultural situation where those instructions to the letter were called for. But the principles they were trying to maintain might not require all the rigidity of those instructions in every place where otherwise it's not disorderly. So, in your home church, if a woman asks a question, especially if a message is being given that's in a casual enough setting—it depends on how formal your church is—but if it's casual enough that questions in general are permitted, I don't know that I would strongly forbid women to ask questions. But on the other hand, each fellowship should probably apply those instructions the way they see fit for their group. Is there some disagreement in your church about that?
Dwight: No, in fact, the pastor after he gives a sermon, he opens the floor up for questions for any and all. However, I don't see it just being at Corinth only. In 1 Timothy 2, it's a similar instruction, that they're not to teach or exercise authority over men; they're to quietly receive instruction. And of course, Paul said it's a commandment of the Lord. It just seems like it's a commandment that we're ignoring if we don't follow what he says.
Steve Gregg: What Paul actually says in verse 37 of 1 Corinthians 14, "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." I think what he's saying is, "I'm an apostle of Christ. To receive me is to receive Christ." That's what Jesus said about the apostles: "If you receive one that I send, then you're receiving me." I think Paul's saying, "If you think you're spiritual or if you're a prophet, then you'll recognize that I am an apostle of Christ and when I speak with his authority." So, if I give these instructions, nobody should refute them. I don't think he's saying that Jesus himself commanded women to be silent, because I don't read of him ever doing that or commanding that. So, I think what he's saying is, "When I give instructions, I'm an apostle. You should take them as being from the Lord himself. If you don't see them as the commandments of the Lord when I speak them—that is, whatever I speak is the commandment of the Lord because I'm an apostle—then you're not spiritual and you're not a prophet." By the way, there's a lot of Christians who are not spiritual in that everything they don't recognize Paul's authority. But I do, and yet I don't think he's saying that quite apart from what I've told you to do here in Corinth, there's a standing commandment that Jesus made somewhere that told women not to speak in the church. I don't think Paul is saying that and I don't think that would even be the true thing. Now, you did mention 1 Timothy 2. Obviously, 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 are the two places in the New Testament that we would appeal to to talk about women being quiet in the church. But they're not similar, in my opinion. It's true they both say—I mean, in verse 11 of 1 Timothy 2, it says, "Let a woman learn in quietness," is the word that Paul uses, "with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man but to be quiet." In my opinion, quietness doesn't mean absolute silence. After all, Paul told men in the Corinthian church, "If someone wants to speak in tongues but there's no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church and speak to himself and to God." In other words, keeping silent would mean don't do the thing you were going to do. Don't speak out in tongues if there's no one there to interpret; just don't. And I think Paul's saying that women are not called to be the teachers in the church, they're not called to be the leaders in the church. I don't put a woman in the position of authority or teaching over the men in the church. And then, of course, he goes on immediately to talk about in chapter 3, verse 1, the qualifications for those who are put in that position, who are all men, husbands of one wife, and so forth. So, I think that Paul in 1 Timothy is talking about a very different thing. He's not assuming in 1 Timothy that you've got a bunch of unruly women that need to be reined in. He's assuming that Timothy's in a position to decide what leaders to recognize in the church as overseers. And Paul says, "Well, first of all, there might be a lot of spiritual women there, but I don't put women in that position. I don't even put single men in that position, or men who have multiple wives in that position. I put a man with one wife is what I put in there," he says. So, that's what I understand him to be saying there. So, I don't think it's the same circumstance or even the same teaching, although both places have this in common: in both places, women are told to be quiet. But then Paul tells all people to live their life in quietness and mind their own business too. I mean, obviously, you have to speak when there's something you have to speak, but to just be a chatterbox or just be a person who's always talking is something that's not desirable. It says that in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. He tells the people to mind their own business and live in quietness and to supply their own needs with their own hands and so forth. So, quietness is a generally good thing. In 1 Peter chapter 3, Peter says that the women should not be adorned with the outward adornment of plaiting of gold and hair and things like that, but they should be adorned with the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. So, being quiet, being a quiet person rather than a noisy person, is typically a general rule for women and men to follow. The boisterous woman in the Book of Proverbs, the one who's out in the street shouting out, and it says she's boisterous and she's clamorous—that's the woman who's out, well, that's how Solomon describes the prostitute. She's noisy and stuff. That doesn't mean every noisy woman is a prostitute, it just means that a quiet disposition is a good thing. It's a peaceful thing, it's a desirable thing, and women in the church, rather than being up there teaching the men, should be quiet. But the New King James says "silent," but the word in the Greek I think just means "quiet." So, anyway, I'm not one who puts absolute restrictions on women sharing or teaching—or I should say, asking questions—in the church. Some would, and they might use those scriptures to justify it, but of course, whoever is doing the church needs to follow the scriptures as they understand them, and I've just shared kind of how I understand them. Dwight, it's great talking and I need to take another caller if I have time before the break. DL in Menifee, California. Hi DL, welcome.
DL: Hi Steve. Okay, so my question is Matthew 16. Jesus says, "Whoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and who you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does that mean?
Steve Gregg: Well, first of all, it doesn't say "whoever," it says "whatever," okay? Yeah, and it says that in chapter 16 of Matthew, obviously, in verse 19. And Jesus gives the exact same teaching two chapters later in chapter 18 and verse 18. "Assuredly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Binding and loosing was a Hebraic expression for a rabbi's teaching that something was okay or not okay. For a teacher, a rabbi, if they would bind something in their teaching, that means they forbade it. They'd bind you to a restriction about that thing. If they were on the other hand permitting something in their teaching, they were loosing it. You were not bound, you were not restricted in it; you were free to do the thing. And that's how they spoke. And therefore, and some of the rabbis had different views about things. And one rabbi would bind a certain action and another one would loose it. For example, there was a rabbi named Shammai who allowed divorce only in the case of a woman's infidelity. Another rabbi named Hillel allowed divorce for much more frivolous reasons, even if she got old and ugly and the man found a woman he found more attractive, or if his wife burned the food, or if she was ornery and unpleasant. Rabbi Hillel said you can divorce her for that. In other words, to divorce your wife because she became obnoxious and unpleasant was an action that Hillel loosed, that is, he permitted it. Rabbi Shammai would bind that, he would not allow you to do that. That's what binding and loosing meant, which means that binding and loosing things has to do with what is being permitted or not being permitted by some teaching authority. Now, the apostles are addressed in both of these passages, and Jesus tells them that whatever they bind on earth has been bound in heaven. Now, it doesn't read that way in all English versions, it does read that way in the Greek. Some English versions read "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven," but the Greek can read, and there's even footnotes in some of the translations pointing this out, "whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven." In other words, you are going to enforce the standards on earth that God has, which God has permitted, what God has loosed, that's what you're going to permit or forbid on earth in the church. That is to say, the apostles now are God's spokesmen to transmit God's decisions made in heaven about what we should or should not do to the people. In other words, the church in a sense is enforcing standards on earth that God has already established as standards in heaven. So, you know, different translations read differently, but I think you'll find the ones that are most accurate that say "whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven." Meaning that whatever God has said is okay to do, the apostles will tell the church on earth to do that. Whatever God says not to do, the apostles on earth will tell the church on earth not to do. So they're basically enforcing the divine decrees in the community of the Christians is what I think Jesus is saying. By the way, both of these passages, Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, are in context where Jesus mentions the church. And they're the only two times in the Gospels that we have any record of Jesus saying anything about the church per se. In chapter 16, in the same context, he says to Peter, "Upon this rock I'll build my church," which is the first time and almost the only time in all the Gospels where Jesus uses the word church. But he does so again in chapter 18, the other context we were talking about where this same thing about binding and loosing is stated. And he says, you know, "If they won't hear the church, if he doesn't listen when two or three tell him he's wrong, tell it to the church. And if he won't hear the church, let him be to you like a pagan or a tax collector." So, interestingly, Jesus is talking about the church in both of these places and apparently the apostolic authority over the church, so that the church is governed by the teaching of the apostles, which is simply a reflection of God's teaching which is revealed to them. So they're binding and loosing on earth the behaviors that God himself in heaven binds and looses.
DL: That makes sense. Thank you very much.
Steve Gregg: Okay, good talking to you DL. Bye now. Myrna in Worcester, Massachusetts. Welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Myrna: Hi Steve, love your program. I just finished reading the book of Esther, and I've read it quite many times, and I'm still perplexed as to why this book was canonized and put into the Bible. Can you please explain the three criteria that it had to meet and how it met them?
Steve Gregg: Well, it's really hard for us to know how the Jews made decisions about the canonization of various books. Now, some of them are obvious. Books written by Moses, the founder of the country who was also a prophet of God, who saw God face to face and received his instructions from God, that's a no-brainer accepting Moses' writings. Likewise, the prophets who spoke in the name of Yahweh and spoke, you know, prophesied things that came true and so forth and clearly were inspired men, their works too. Now, besides those, there's books that are merely historical narrative, and there's books that are merely things like wisdom or poetry. And the inspiration of those books, it's hard to know exactly how that was decided. Now, Jesus did indicate in the 24th chapter of Luke, after he rose from the dead, he told the two men on the road to Emmaus that everything that was written of him in Moses and the prophets and the Psalms—now, the Psalms could be shorthand for the writings, which were all the rest of the Old Testament that were not in Moses the prophets—that they would be fulfilled, which means that Jesus recognized the Jewish canon of scripture. Now, some people think that the Jews did not recognize Esther as scripture because—now, I'm not an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls, but from what I understand, Esther's the one book of the Old Testament that is not contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls. And one of the reasons that some people questioned whether it should be canonized, and you're asking the same question, is it never specifically mentions God, though the providential hand of God is kind of unmissable. You can't miss it there. God is definitely orchestrating all the events. But I'm not really sure exactly all the things that went into the assumption that Esther should be included. One thing, it may be that Mordecai was who was the author. We don't know that he was the author, but he could have been, and he might have been regarded by the Jews as a prophetic leader and therefore a book written by him would be in there. Another important thing about Esther is it provides the background for a traditional practice of the Jews—that is, the Feast of Purim, which was never in the Law of Moses. There's two feasts the Jews celebrate every year that aren't in the Law of Moses: Purim and Hanukkah. And both of those arose in post-exilic times because God delivered the Jews from annihilation or from destruction. One was when he did so in the time of Esther; the other time was in the time of the Maccabees when God delivered them from Antiochus Epiphanes. Both of those stories tell us the origins of these festivals, Purim and Hanukkah respectively. Now, on the other hand, the Jews did not regard Maccabees, which tells us the story of Hanukkah, they did not receive that as scripture. But they received it as accurate history and an accurate background for that festival. It may be that many of the Jews felt that way about Esther too. It's historically accurate, it tells the true story behind Purim and its celebration, but maybe they weren't sure whether it should be regarded as scripture or not. And you know, I'm not really in the position to make independent decisions about what the Jews include or don't include in their Bible. So, I've never really known if there were a lot of reasons to include Esther. If not, it may be one of the few books that there aren't very clear reasons for doing so. But on the other hand, the Jews who did include it, I'm sure had their reasons. And even if it was only to have a story behind the festival of Purim and so later generations would know why they celebrate that feast, maybe that's all. But I can't answer for or I can't defend or not defend the inclusion of Esther in the Old Testament canon. But I have no objection to it being there because the Jews have accepted it. We see no evidence that Jesus or the apostles, you know, complained about it or rejected it. I've got to take a break. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. There's all kinds of resources there. You can even donate from there if you want to. We have another half hour coming up, don't go away. I'll be back in 30 seconds. Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour taking your calls. It does look to me as though our lines are full. If you want to try to call in a few minutes, we might have a line open up at this number, 844-484-5737. I want to say that most of the calls that come into the program, not all, but most of them, are questions that people have called in before. I mean, we've been doing this five days a week for 29 years. What is that about? That's got to be about 200 programs a year, 2200 or more programs a year. And let's see here, that's got actually to be about 225 programs a year or something like that. That's a lot of programs, 29 years of that. We've got a lot of them in our archives, and more importantly for you if you have questions, is that if the question you have has been asked before, it can be searched topically on another website called matthew713.com. That's matthew713.com. And if you've never discovered that website, that's an amazing website. A number of individuals have helped put that together. It's a topical index of all the calls that have come into this program for well over a decade and a half. And we don't go all the way back for 30 years with it, but there's about 30,000 calls that have been indexed topically there. For example, the questions people have asked me today, I believe you can find those questions at matthew713.com. There's very few questions that haven't been asked when you've got 30,000 questions on about over 2,000 subjects. But just so you'll know, if you have questions about this and or let's just say I can only give a really short answer because we're up against a break or something to your question, you can go further into it by going to matthew713.com, look up the topic, and you'll probably see quite a few times a question like yours has come up and there may be in some cases a much more thorough answer given. Sometimes I give a long answer to a question and sometimes other restraints cause me to give a briefer one. But they're all there, and so make regular use of matthew713.com. It's free, so why not? All right, let's talk to Robert from Round Rock, Texas. Hi Robert, welcome.
Robert: Yeah, hi Steve. I just got a quick question and I'll listen to your answer off the air. I have a daughter that's going to church camp and at the end of the church camp they always have a profession of faith and I've been told different people that that's not right or—
Steve Gregg: Let me just stop you here. Your voice is pixelating quite badly and I'm missing a lot of the words. Are you in a bad spot? Can you get to a better place? It's not good now.
Robert: Okay, well, I'll tell you what, I'll call back Monday and I'll try to ask again.
Steve Gregg: Why don't you call back on a landline if you can? This is a landline? No, it's a cell phone. Okay, yeah, because your voice is garbled. If you call back today and our call screener says it's Robert from Round Rock, I'll put you ahead of the others since this is not your fault, I trust. Okay, let's talk to Aaron in Grass Valley, California. Aaron, welcome to the Narrow Path.
Aaron: Hi Steve, thank you for taking my call. I apologize if this has been answered already, but I was curious. I just heard another preacher preaching and the subject came up, the rebellion of Adam and Eve. And I'm just wondering why is it considered a rebellion since they were deceived? And I feel like they were truly deceived because they kind of believed that what they were doing was okay.
Steve Gregg: Well, in 1 Timothy chapter 2, it says the woman in that case was deceived, but the man was not deceived. So, one of them was deceived and the other wasn't. But Eve was deceived into rebelling against God's command. Adam was not deceived, but he rebelled in order to go with his wife, apparently. Even if you're deceived, if you do the very thing that God specifically told you not to do, then to say you're deceived doesn't mean that you thought you were doing the right thing. It means that you thought you'd get away with it. I mean, that's certainly what the devil said to Eve. She told him God told us not to eat of that tree because we'll die if we eat of that tree. The devil said, "Well, you won't die. God's just trying to keep you out of the place of privilege that he has. He doesn't want any equals. So go ahead and do it." Now, there's no way that she would have thought, "Oh, then God must not mind if we eat it." No, what she's hearing is, "Oh, we can do what God told us not to do and we'll get away with it." And that is rebellion. That's rebellion even if she was deceived by what the devil said.
Aaron: Right, okay. Can I add something? Rebellion as a generic term, but I don't get the sense that her heart was changed against God.
Steve Gregg: Well, she knew he said not to do it. And I'm not being unnecessarily argumentative, respectfully I'm asking just as a conversation, and you're a wise man and I'm asking you to guide me through the scripture to show me what it's saying because everyone teaches that, it's the rebellion, right? There's a rebellion there. Okay, well let me just say this. If somebody in authority over you tells you to do something that is a legitimate thing for them to tell you to do, okay? Then if somebody else tells you, "You know, you'll be sorry if you obey that person who told you that. You'll be happier if you disobey him." Well, then you're being tempted to rebel against that authority. If you knowingly do what the authority over you tells you not to do, you're rebelling against that authority. That's what rebellion means. Now, in the case of Adam and Eve, they had zero excuse because A, God had given them a word. He'd told them, "Don't do this. If you do it, you'll die." It's like we have the word of God in scripture. If we are deceived into thinking something contrary to what the Bible says, well, that's on us. We don't have any excuse for that. We have the word of God. Now, you may say, "But what if we don't believe the word of God?" Well, that's just the problem, isn't it? The problem is God said it and we have to decide whether we're going to call him a liar or if we're going to submit to his authority. You know, it says in 1 John chapter 5, "He that does not believe the witness has made him a liar." There's really no way that you can not believe that God's word is true without saying he's a liar. If I tell you something and you say, "I don't believe you," you're either saying that I don't know what I'm talking about—and no one could say that about God, because he certainly knows what he's talking about—or you're saying I'm a liar, which would be what you'd be necessarily saying about God. If God tells you you'll die when you eat that fruit, and someone else, in this case a serpent, tells you, "No, that's not true. God is fooling you. God is telling you that because he doesn't want you to become like him," and you say, "Oh, okay, then God lied to me and I'm going to disobey him," that's exactly what went through Eve's mind. It's right there in black and white on the page. Now, so if God has told people what is true and we get deceived into thinking it isn't true, it's because we have decided when we've heard what God said and what someone else said, we've decided to rebel against what God said and say he's lying to us and to go with whoever the adversary is. That's a rebellion. That's going over to the other side. So, I mean, if that doesn't feel like rebellion in your mind, I'm not sure what would. But it, you know, if someone says, "That's not really rebelling," well, then I don't think the word rebelling in that person's statement has a unique definition that doesn't agree with the dictionary definition. Also, I think a person who says, "Well, that doesn't seem very rebellious," is a person that doesn't have a very high view of one's obligation to obey God. And I think there's an awful lot of people living today in a what was once a Christian-like society that knew that the Bible was true and that people should do what God said. Whether they wanted to or not, they knew they should. We now live in a time where they don't even know they should. People just assume that God doesn't have any right to tell me what to do. Why should Eve have to obey him? I mean, after all, what had he ever done for her besides create her out of dust? You know? So, I mean, if people don't think that it's very essential to obey God, our creator, then they won't think it sounds very much of a bad thing that someone rebelled against God. But if you realize that man has no duty except to obey God, his creator, and they had the choice to either do that or to say, "No, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do what God said. I'm going to do what I want to do," that's what rebellion is. Now, if I haven't walked you through it well enough, I'm afraid there's not much more I can say to do so. But yeah, I don't have any objection to people saying that Adam and Eve rebelled against God when he gave them explicit instructions which they did not forget. She was able to quote those instructions back to the serpent in the conversation. So they didn't forget what God said, they just decided they didn't care what he said. Eve decided she didn't care what he said because she thought he was lying. Adam decided to not care what God said, not because he was deceived into thinking God lied, but simply because he went with his wife. And that's sometimes men do the wrong thing in order to please their wives. That's a fact. Anyway, I appreciate your call. Thanks for joining us. Our next caller is Kman from Denver, Colorado. Hi Kman, you're on the air. Welcome.
Kman: Well hello, Steve. How are you doing, sir?
Steve Gregg: I'm doing fine.
Kman: Excellent. Hey, I really appreciate your program. Thank you for how much of a blessing you've been to the body of Christ all these years, brother. I have a tendency to get very verbose, so I'll try to nip it in a nutshell. But the thing that you're talking about right now, I see the big problem and the reason why this is happening, why many people don't believe that they can just not obey the word of God and do what they're doing, is because of this simple fact of misusing where Paul said that we're not under the law. I'll try to just quote this real quick, if you don't mind. In Romans 8, it says that "now there is no condemnation to those that be in Christ who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and death." And I think the mistake that has been made—and it's easy for the body of Christ to make this—but when Paul says we're not under law, when we receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, the spirit of Christ comes inside us, which means that we're no longer under the law of sin and death. So he understood that at that time, but I see that because of the things that are happening, the body of Christ has misunderstood what it means not to be under law. When the Lord says we're not under—when Paul said that, we're not under the law of sin and death. So that means we're not—the penalty, the full penalty of the law of sin and death, Jesus bridged the gap. So, in saying this, one of the byproducts of this I see is everything from people coming up with "everyone will eventually be saved, if not in this lifetime, then next." And also, I see it as a problem of why we have this replacement theology belief that we replaced Israel. And I see those are both byproducts of that because it says that "the love of many will wax cold because iniquity abounds, the love of many will wax cold," as it says in Matthew 24. So I wanted to read another scripture—
Steve Gregg: Wait, wait, no, there's a lot of people with scriptures behind you and we only have 15 minutes before we're done here, but I do want to respond to some things that you've shared, if I could. And it's good maybe to just bring up one thing at a time because, like I said, there's a lot of other people. I agree with what you've said about people don't seem to understand what it means when Paul says we're not under the law, and they think it means it really doesn't matter what we do, doesn't matter how we live, we'll still be saved because we're not under the law. Of course, Paul actually raised that question in Romans 6:15. He said, "What then? Shall we sin because we're not under the law but under grace?" And his answer is, "God forbid, no!" You know, whoever we're obeying is our master, he said. You're the slave of the one you're obeying. If you're serving sin, then you're a slave of sin. But if you're actually serving grace, grace teaches us to live godly lives, Paul said elsewhere in Titus chapter 2. So, in other words, I think that people don't understand what it means to not be under the law. And you're right, when a person becomes a Christian, they receive the spirit of God, and now we are led by the spirit. Paul said in Romans 8, "As many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the children of God." Paul himself was talking about how he acts differently when he's with Jews who are under the law and Gentiles who are not under the law, simply as an evangelistic strategy. He says in 1 Corinthians 9:20, "To the Jews I became as a Jew that I might win the Jews. To those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law. To those who are without law, as without law—not being without law toward God but under law toward Christ—that I might win those who are without law." Now he says, "When I'm with the Jews who are under the law, I go ahead and keep the restrictions of their diet and things like that so that I don't offend them. I behave as if I'm under the law." But he said, "When I'm with Gentiles, they don't observe any of those Jewish restrictions." He said, "I behave like them. I behave in order to win those who are without law. I behave like those who live without the law." But then he puts a parenthesis in there where he says, "I do live like a person who doesn't have the law of Moses, but I'm not without law because I'm under the law of Christ." In other words, I don't have to obey what Moses said because that was a different covenant. That was for the Jews in the Old Testament. But in the new covenant, I have to follow the law of Christ. That means what Christ said to do. I don't do what Moses said, I do what Jesus said. So Paul never was lawless, you know? Now, you mentioned that there were some things that you think rose from this mistake that people make, one of which was you said "replacement theology." I didn't see a connection—I don't see a connection between this particular error that you were mentioning of misunderstanding what it means to not be under the law and the whole idea of replacement theology. I don't really see how those two are connected. I could see maybe how both errors, if they are both errors, they could both be held by one person. Most people who believe in replacement theology, though, are not dispensational, and the most people who say we're not under the law so it doesn't matter what we do are dispensational. That's basically a hyper-dispensational position sometimes called "hyper-grace" theology. It's part of dispensationalism. But, you know, so I don't think that the so-called errors that you've identified run in the same circles. I don't think that the ones who take a hyper-grace approach are the same ones who hold to the doctrine that you're calling a replacement theology. So I'm not seeing that as a connected thing. However, I do believe your first point definitely has merit. I appreciate your call. Wesley in Indianapolis, Indiana. Welcome.
Wesley: Yes, hello. Thanks for taking my call. I wonder about why is it that we always refer to God in the scriptures—or almost always refer to God as he and him and Father, when what I think I understand is that in the original text, God is referred to as Eloah or Elohim, or there's two different kind of non-male or female distinctions?
Steve Gregg: Okay. Well, God is not male or female. God is... "male" and "female" are biological and sometimes mechanical terms, like electrical plugs. Sometimes they're male or female, but they speak of function. They speak of connecting things that are unlike each other. Males and females have genitalia that function like male and female ends of electrical cords. So it's a mechanical thing, it's a physical thing, it's a biological thing. Some creatures have the characteristics of maleness in their biology, others have the characteristics of femaleness in their biology. God doesn't have any biology. God is a spirit and does not have chromosomes, does not have... he's not made of cells. He's not made of physical things. And the reason is because physical things generally are subject to physical laws and God is not subject to physical laws. He's a spirit, he's a supernatural, above the laws of nature. So technically God, a spirit, doesn't have any of those things that define among biological organisms maleness or femaleness. However, God does relate to people in ways that are analogous to the way we relate to different kinds of authority figures, like children to parents, subjects to their rulers, servants to their owners, and things like that. And so God is sometimes called Father because we're his children. He's sometimes called Lord because we're his servants. He's sometimes called King because we are his subjects. Now, all of those, of course, Father, Lord, and King are masculine terms. And the reason they're used is because the relationship between somebody and their father is different than their relationship with their mother. He's also called a husband. And a woman's relationship to her husband is different than anyone else's relationship to that same man. To say he's our King rather than our Queen—I suppose a Queen has in modern times has no more or not much less authority than the King—but on the other hand, a King was a supreme monarch and his Queen was subject to him. So to convey the idea that God in relation to us is the supreme authority, there's no human institutions that can convey that better than the terms King, Father, husband, Lord, and those are the terms that are used. Now, this doesn't mean that God has male parts as opposed to female parts. It means that in relation to him, he plays a role toward us that generally is known to be played by male individuals as opposed to female individuals. So, you know, I believe that the language of humanity is applied because of communication with humanity and with a desire to make humans understand our relationship with God. God chooses those analogies that are best suited. So it's not telling us that God is sexually male or female, it's simply saying that in relation to him, he is like a father more than like a mother. He's like a King more than like a Queen. He's like a husband more than like a wife. So that's what I think is the reason for what you're asking. I appreciate your call. I'm sorry, I've got to take another call. Thank you. David in San Francisco, California. Welcome.
David: Hi Steve, how are you? So yeah, my question is about, what's your take on prosperity gospel?
Steve Gregg: My take on the prosperity gospel? Well, my take is that it's not the Bible, it's not the Bible's teaching. The prosperity gospel says that because we are King's kids, we should live like kings. Because it's more fun to be rich than to be poor, God wants us to have fun so he wants us to be rich. Same thing as saying he wants us well and he doesn't want us to be sick. The prosperity gospel is generally just part of what's called the "Word of Faith" teaching, which is more properly the health and wealth gospel. The message that if you have enough faith, you will be healthy and you'll be wealthy, because God wants everyone to be healthy and wealthy at all times. Now, this just doesn't agree with anything the Bible teaches. The Bible does not teach that God wants people to be healthy all the time. There's cases of the Bible actually making somebody sick, like Jacob after wrestling with God all night. God touched him and crippled him for the rest of his life. He wasn't crippled before, he was crippled in his encounter with God. Paul had a thorn in his flesh and he prayed for it to be gone. God said, "No, I've got something else in mind. I'm going to give you the grace for it and you're going to stay in that condition but with my grace." God has different priorities than we do. The health and wealth gospel basically prioritizes what man prioritizes, not what God does. Of course, anyone who had the choice should probably choose to be rich and healthy. But that's not what God has provided for each of us, nor what he cares to provide. Why should we all be rich and healthy? The Bible does not indicate that rich and healthy people are better people, more godly than people—in fact, in many cases, having a lot of wealth and health makes us forgetful of God. Agur in Proverbs chapter 30 said, "Don't give me too much, or else I might forget God and say 'Who is the Lord?'" He didn't want to have too much money. The same thing is true of health. If someone's sick, they often will realize their mortality and be humbled enough to turn to God when they wouldn't if they're raging forward in their health and prosperity. So, man's looking for physical relief and comfort and pleasure. God has something in mind that's eternal. Paul said, "We do not look at the things that are seen, we look at the things that are not seen, because the things that are seen are temporal and the things that are not seen are eternal." You know, Peter had to be rebuked by Jesus once in Matthew 16 where Jesus said to him, "You savor the things of man and not the things that are of God." And so, I have to say that while I have no objection to people being healthy or wealthy if God so wills it for them, there's nothing in the Bible that indicates that God's will is always for everyone to be healthy and wealthy. Anyone who says, "Well, God must want that because I want that," well, there's a difference. You savor the things of man, he savors other things, the things of God. Once we learn to savor the things of God more than the things of man, we'll be more like Christ, and that's really what we're supposed to do. We're supposed to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. If someone says, "Follow God and you'll get wealthy," they're just distracting you from Christ and keeping your mind on the carnal things that you already wanted anyway. I'm out of time. Thanks for joining us. You've been listening to the Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. If you want to write to us, we're listener supported. The address is The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California 92593.