The Narrow Path

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour to take your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we welcome you to call. We'll talk about them. If you disagree with the host, you're welcome to call. We can talk about that, too. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737.

I don't think I have any announcements to make that I know of, so I'm just going to go to the phones and talk to Ryan in Lynnwood, Washington. Hi, Ryan. Welcome to the Narrow Path.

Ryan: Hey, Steve. I was listening to your verse-by-verse in Jeremiah, I think it's chapter 31, and it says that God will do a new thing on the earth and a woman will encompass a man.

Steve Gregg: That's Isaiah, I believe.

Ryan: It is Jeremiah. I just read it, and then I listened to the verse-by-verse in verse 22. Isaiah also several times speaks about God doing a new thing. But here, you're right, in Jeremiah 31:22.

Ryan: I just have a setup question and then my suggestion. Is it true that, at least from the records, Jesus was the first rabbi to have women followers?

Steve Gregg: That's an interesting question. I know that the Jews generally thought it was a waste of time to teach women. Therefore, I would be shocked, and I really don't think it is the case, that any rabbi would have had disciples that were female because they believed you might as well flush the law down the toilet as readily as teach it to a woman. That's what the rabbis would say.

You're probably correct. I've never done the research to find out if there were any rabbis previously who did, but given their general attitude, it seems to me that they did not take women as disciples at all. Of course, Jesus didn't choose any women as apostles, but there were women who certainly were disciples of His and traveled around listening and supporting Him, too. So, He probably was the first, though they were not in an official capacity as disciples, I think, like the apostles.

Ryan: My thought was maybe instead of "on the earth," a new thing in the land, if it would be "in the land," a new thing in the land, and that women were encompassing Him. That was just my thought.

Steve Gregg: Frankly, commentators have really wrestled with this particular verse because it's not obvious even in the context what it means or what it even could mean. It says, "How long will you gad about, oh you backsliding daughter," meaning Israel, of course. He says, "For the Lord has created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall encompass a man."

Encompass a man, surround a man, some translations would understand this to mean protecting a man, like you might put your arms around your children to protect them from a danger. My version says shelter a man. It can have all of those possible meanings, but exactly what the phenomenon in real life is that it's talking about, I don't know.

Frankly, commentators don't appear to know, either. I've never found one that was completely persuasive. One commentator I remember said that a woman protecting a man is speaking figuratively of the reversal of roles, like between a weak party and a strong party, where men really generally protect women, but a woman protecting a man would be like a role reversal, the weak one defending the strong one.

The temptation for many is to see this as a reference to the incarnation, and that a woman surrounds a man when He's in her womb, but that's not a new thing. The incarnation was certainly a unique thing, but He says the Lord has created a new thing on the earth. If it's simply talking about a woman and a baby, that's nothing new; that's been going on since Adam and Eve.

I'm not really sure what the new thing is here, but I appreciate your suggestion. Obviously, the words meant something, but it's so obscure that scholars can't agree on what it meant. Honestly, I'm not really sure if we chose among the various guesses and speculations about it if we'd be better off for knowing. I'm not really sure it's saying anything essential to us to know, but it does obviously mean something.

It's just one of those several things in the Bible that you're just going to get a bunch of opinions about because it's not obvious to us as moderns. There's a good chance that in those days, the hearers of Isaiah would have made some sense of it because remember, they lived almost 3,000 years before us, and he's speaking in their language and in their culture and so forth. It may have had some intelligible meaning to them that we would miss because we're not in their shoes. I'm just saying there are things that we don't know just because they're not made in unambiguous terms.

Ryan: The first thing that popped to my mind was how all the apostles, the disciples, the men ran and hid, and that the women were more bold and still in public. They were more willing to associate with Him even at the danger of their lives.

Steve Gregg: You could be right. Obviously, the words meant something, but it's so obscure that scholars can't agree on what it meant. Honestly, I'm not really sure if we chose among the various guesses and speculations about it if we'd be better off for knowing. I'm not really sure it's saying anything essential to us to know, but it does obviously mean something. It's just one of those several things in the Bible that you're just going to get a bunch of opinions about because it's not obvious to us.

Ryan: Okay. Well, God bless you and thank you.

Steve Gregg: Thanks, Ryan. God bless you, too. Dwight in Denver, Colorado, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Dwight: Hi, Steve. Just wondering, do you believe that when a believer dies, he goes to Abraham's bosom or paradise until the second coming, or does he go immediately to heaven?

Steve Gregg: Insofar as we have any information relevant to that, and we don't have very much, the things that Paul says to us about that is that he anticipates being absent from the body when he dies but being at that time present with the Lord. He said that in 2 Corinthians 5 and also in Philippians 1.

He said that he was eager to depart, and he was talking about death. He says, "I'm not sure if I want to live longer or die sooner. I'm in prison, it's miserable here. If I die, that's great, it's better." He says, "I'd like to depart and be with the Lord, which is far better. However, it may be more useful to God to keep me around, so I may be stuck here for a while more."

He's contemplating the relative desirability of living on or dying, and when he speaks of the option of dying, he says, "I'd love to depart and be with the Lord." So, he believed that when he would die, he'd depart from his body, absent from the body, and he would then be with the Lord as he said also in 2 Corinthians 5.

Those are the most direct statements in the Bible we have about that particular question. To my mind, yeah, we do go directly to be with the Lord. That is, our spirit does. Clearly, our body doesn't because you can dig up any grave of a Christian who's been buried and know his body's still there, but that's what's resurrected on the last day when those in the graves come forth.

Dwight: But unbelievers today, they do go to Hades, right?

Steve Gregg: As far as I know. Again, the Bible actually says less about what happens to unbelievers when they die than it says about what happens to believers when they die, and actually, it says very little about either.

The only clue that I know of that we have about unbelievers when they die is the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Some people think it's a true story, some people think it's a parable. I suspect it's a parable and not a true story, but even if it is a true story, let's just take that for the sake of argument, he's not talking about a case of a believer who died after the cross because, of course, Jesus had not died yet and hadn't been risen.

He's talking about a situation pre-resurrection, and the unbeliever certainly found himself in torment of flames. Is that how things remain after the resurrection when an unbeliever dies? Maybe so. We have nothing really to give us an alternative view on that. Some people think that when an unbeliever dies, they're simply non-existent until the resurrection. Frankly, I think that could be true, but it doesn't seem to have been true in that parable or in that story.

The question of whether that story's given in order to inform us about the state of the dead after they die or to make a different point, which is what I think, would have something to do with letting that inform us about it.

Dwight: I appreciate it. Thank you.

Steve Gregg: Okay, Dwight. Thanks for your call. Good talking to you. Tina in Surrey, British Columbia, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Tina: Hi, thank you for your service. I just wanted to know, does God mind if we have our occupation at night? Jesus was a carpenter and He worked during the day, and because some people who work at night do nothing during the day. I'll take my answer off the air. Thank you.

Steve Gregg: Is it wrong to have an occupation at night because Jesus said the night comes when no one can work? If that's your question, then no, this would not forbid working at night. It would simply be an observation.

In Jesus' day, they didn't have artificial light like we do. They had artificial light in the form of a torch, but a torch in historical language means a piece of wood with some combustible stuff at the end that you light a fire to, which, of course, you might put some pitch or some tar on it, which would cause it to burn longer, but it would be expensive, it'd be inconvenient, and it would only light up a little area. If you're working out in the fields by torchlight, you only see a few feet around you. Working on a field, you have to have a broader view.

People just didn't work at night generally speaking in the ancient world. When the sun went down, they either went to bed or they would perhaps go to parties and get drunk by torchlight, I suppose, or lamplight. Paul did say people who get drunk, get drunk at night and they behave badly at night, but that would be the people who want to behave badly. What he's saying is they don't usually do that in the daylight; they'd rather do that in the dark and not have everyone be able to see what they're doing.

The ordinary person that Jesus had in mind would have approximately 12 hours available each day for work. He says, "Are there not 12 hours in the day? The night comes when no one can work." I think what he's just saying is he's not making a moral statement about how right or wrong it would be to work at night. He's simply saying this is an illustration of the fact that we have limited time to do the business of our lives. There's a purpose for us to fulfill, and just like every workday has its limits, a nighttime comes and people can't work after that, so with our lives.

Our lives are like a workday, and the night is coming. Each of us will die and it'll be the end of opportunity for us to do any more of the work that God put us here to do. Jesus is saying that as an argument for continuing His work even in a dangerous situation.

They said, "What, you're going to go down to Jerusalem? They tried to kill you there last time you were there." He said, "Well, we got to work while it's day, you know. The nighttime comes when no one can work."

I think he's just saying we need to seize the day, seize the opportunity. He's not saying that if you happen to live in a later age where there was inexpensive, bright, artificial lighting that made it as possible to work at night as in the daytime, His statement wouldn't really be the same. Not because morals change, but He's not making a moral point.

He's stating the way things are or were in His day. He says a night comes when no one can work. He doesn't say no one'd be allowed to; they just can't because it's dark. He's simply using the illustration of the fact that the workday is limited to the daylight hours in order to convey the idea that everybody's life is a workday that is limited and there comes a time when that opportunity ends. So we'd better seize the opportunity while we still have the life. That's what I understand His position to be and the point He's making, not declaring something about morals or ethics with reference to working at night.

Charles in Indianapolis, Indiana, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Charles: Thanks for having me on the show. I listen to your show every day, sometimes twice a day, so I'm really thankful for your show. I have a question and a short comment. The comment, I wanted to read a scripture in 2 Peter 3:9. It just talks about the Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

My question is, the same God that doesn't want people to go to hell, would you agree that God knows everything from the beginning to the end? So if He knows the end already, would you agree that the same Holy Spirit that knows the end is still trying to make a change to prevent people from going to hell? How does that all work?

Steve Gregg: As far as God's foreknowledge of the end of each individual, that's mysterious to us. There are actually theologians who believe the Bible doesn't necessarily teach that God knows the final choice people will make. Of course, the doctrine of God's omniscience means He knows everything, but the Bible never uses the word omniscience and never says He knows everything in some kind of an unqualified sense.

I have no problem believing that God knows the future, but there are some people who can make a case from scripture where they would say no, He doesn't know what we're going to do, so He finds out in real time. That's actually, in my opinion, one respectable option in terms of interpreting the relevant scriptures on it. I don't take that option, but let's just say God does know the future. He knows who's going to be saved and who's not going to be saved.

In my own mind, I don't know how that would affect anything in real time. I don't think the Bible ever says that God is going to do such and such a thing because He knows what people are going to do. In other words, He might know, but I don't find that given as a reason for God's actions.

Now, you would think if God knows what's going to happen, then it's going to happen, obviously, and nothing else can change that because He knows it's going to happen, it's going to. And that would seem to conflict with the idea of having free will to change things. But we have much fewer statements in the Bible declaring that God knows everything than we have in the scripture telling us that God holds us accountable for the things we do and that we have a choice in the matter and that we're responsible for the choices we make.

So I would say, if we find any kind of tension between the idea that God knows what everyone's going to do on the one hand and the view that our fate is determined and it's not our responsibility, we'd have to say it is our responsibility even though God knows. How do those things work out? That's something I don't think has been explained to us.

There are people who say that the reason God knows what we're going to do is because He can take the trajectory of things that are happening already and have been happening for centuries and kind of project them into the future and determine how they'll end. Like they would say a supercomputer could do that, too. It doesn't mean that we don't have free choice, but it might mean that it can predict what we would do in circumstances based not on whether we have free choice or not, but based on who we are and what our commitments are. I'm not arguing that; I'm saying I don't know.

Charles: Well, that helps me out in my thoughts. That's a good answer. Thanks a lot for your time.

Steve Gregg: Okay, Charles. Thanks for your call. Have a good day. Sam in Seattle, Washington is next. Welcome to the Narrow Path, Sam.

Sam: Hi, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. I have a question in regards to the annihilation of the soul. I know it's a Seventh Day Adventist teaching, and we, the mainstream evangelists, might believe differently. However, lately I've had a few conversations with a friend and he's shifted his opinions in regards to this. He's like, "Well, based on the Bible, I believe that this is the answer of what happens with unsaved people after they die after the judgment, that essentially their souls would be destroyed, cease to exist." I'm trying to look in the Bible to find what's the more direct answer. I wanted to see what your opinion on that is.

Steve Gregg: Well, that's certainly the place to look. If you search the scriptures, you'll find that some scriptures do sound like they support the more popular view—I don't know why it would be popular, but it's the mainstream view—that sinners are tormented alive forever and ever in hell.

There are a few scriptures, not very many, maybe four or five possibly, that may suggest something like that. But there's also an awful lot of scriptures that seem to say something else than that and seem to say that the wages of sin is death and the soul that sins will die. Adam and Eve were told if they eat the wrong fruit, they will die. They weren't told they'd be tormented forever and ever; they were told they'd die.

Now, some people would say die just means spiritual death just means separated from God, but they're still alive and conscious and suffering. Well, if the Bible teaches that, fine, but I don't find any definition of death in the Bible or in any dictionary that says death means being separated from God. That may be a consequence of being dead, but that's not the definition of the word "die." It's not even one of the definitions of "die" in any dictionary I've ever encountered. So if someone says, "Well, die means to just be separated from God," you can believe that, I guess, but I wouldn't be able to defend that if I were to say it that way.

There's very, very few verses that seem to say anything about eternal suffering after death, and the ones that are there are found in the most non-literal type context, like two of the passages are in Matthew 25, verses 41 and 46, which are in a parable about people being compared to sheep and goats, which is obviously not literal. We're not literally sheep or goats; that's a symbol, a metaphor. And therefore, the reference to this prolonged punishment could be—let's just say it's in a context that is not one of the most literal contexts in the Bible.

And then the other passages, there might be three, are found in Revelation. Revelation is certainly not the most literal book in the Bible; it's got lots of symbolism. Now, I'm not saying these are symbolic; I'm saying they could be because such information is not provided for us in any book that is primarily written in a literal genre, but these parables and visions and things like that are usually full of symbolism. At least the ones we read of in the Bible are.

So I don't know. I don't really care; I don't plan to go there. But it seems to me that those who would say that when people go to hell, they are annihilated, would have a case and perhaps a more robust case from scripture than those who hold to the traditional view.

The main reason for holding the traditional view seems to be that it is the traditional view and that it's been held by Roman Catholics and Protestants of almost every denomination. It hasn't always been held, especially among the Eastern Church, though some people in the Eastern Church probably hold it. It's just that it's not a clear and unambiguous teaching of scripture, which only means we may not be able to be sure.

But the fact that annihilation is taught by Seventh-day Adventists used to be kind of off-putting to me from the view. I don't hold the view myself; I'm open to it, but I just don't hold it. But it used to be that I thought, "Well, that's the Jehovah's Witness view or that's the Seventh-day Adventist view." And it is. And that was enough to be off-putting. I don't want to move from traditional orthodox Christian views about this and find myself in the company of groups that I find to be fringe or cultic.

And so I just would not give it serious consideration until quite a few very important Christian evangelical scholars began to come out and say they believed it. I started to read what they said and thought, "Well, this may not just be a cultic view; this may be what the Bible teaches." So it's a possibility.

Once again, I can't nail it down for you. But it sounds like you may not have heard my teaching on this subject and it may help you if you want to go to my website, thenarrowpath.com. Under the tab that says Topical Lectures, you'll find under that listing two lectures together called "Three Views of Hell." If you listen to those lectures, they're free, of course. You will be able to kind of fill in some of the gaps in your familiarity with these views.

If you really want to do a deep dive, my book "Why Hell? Three Christian Views" does that. It goes into a deep dive and really analyzes the three views. That book is called "Why Hell? Three Christian Views," which you cannot buy from me, but you can buy from Amazon, or just get the lectures for free at thenarrowpath.com under Topical Lectures.

Everyone is welcome to call the Narrow Path and discuss areas of disagreement with the host. But if you do so, please state your disagreement succinctly at the beginning of your call and be prepared to present your scriptural arguments when asked by the host. Don't be disappointed if you don't have the last word or if your call is cut shorter than you prefer. Our desire is to get as many callers on the air during the short program, so please be considerate to others.

Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour. We have some lines open. It's a good time to call if you want to get through. The lines can be reached at 844-484-5737. Our next caller today is Robert in Norwalk, California. Robert, welcome to the Narrow Path.

Robert: Hi, Steve. I was in my Sunday school class the other day and he took a poll among our class. The question was, was Christ able to commit sin or not? I'd like to have your vote on that topic.

Steve Gregg: The reason this is controversial is on the one hand, we argue that He's God in the flesh, and we know that God cannot sin. Therefore, many people have assumed that when God takes on human flesh, this is still true of Him; He cannot sin.

The other thing is that, of course, the Bible makes references to Jesus being tempted to sin. He was tempted three times in the wilderness by Satan. Three of the Gospels mention this. It says in Hebrews He was tempted in all ways like we are, yet without sin.

Now, what's interesting is James said that God cannot be tempted with evil. Now, if the reason we say Jesus couldn't sin is because the Bible says God can't sin, then we'd have to say then Jesus can't be tempted with sin either because it specifically says God can't be tempted with sin, with evil.

So there are things God can't do that Jesus could do, like get tired. The Bible says God does not become weary, He does not have to sleep, He never becomes tired, and yet Jesus got tired a lot of times. In some cases, He was so tired He was asleep in a boat while it's filling up with water from the storm. He was quite sleepy. That Jesus was sleepy in His human form as we get to be even though God is not ever sleepy means that we have to be careful about saying that just because something is true of God, it continues to be true even when God takes on a form of humanity.

Now, some things are true of God even when He takes on humanity. He is love, He is righteous, He is holy. And there are people who are described that way, too, as holy and righteous and so forth in scripture, not only Jesus. Now, holy people or righteous people generally speaking, that means they don't sin. It doesn't mean they can't; it just means that's what they choose not to do.

Was it possible for Jesus to succumb to temptation? It seems as if it would have been possible, but He didn't. In the Garden of Gethsemane, He was—it says in Hebrews He was striving against sin. I believe what it refers to is He was striving against the temptation to bail. He was asking the Father, if it's possible, let me get out of this. But He realized the Father didn't let Him out of it, so He became strong and resisted the temptation to get out of it, and it says He resisted unto blood in striving against sin.

So it is possible when you're striving against temptation and sin to resist. Jesus did it, and in fact, in 1 Corinthians 10, it says that we can all do that if we have to. The point is that we can overcome temptation. Jesus definitely showed that it was possible for someone not to sin.

But to say that it's possible not to sin doesn't mean it's impossible to sin. Take the temptation where Satan takes Jesus up to the pinnacle of the temple and says, "Go ahead and jump." That was a temptation apparently because He knew that angels would protect Him and so forth. But Jesus didn't do it. But what if He had? Was it impossible for Jesus to just step off the edge there and jump? Could He do it? I think He could. He just didn't. He was determined not to do that, and so He didn't.

But I don't think there was anything about that particular temptation that would have been impossible for the man Jesus to perform if He had chosen it. This is the thing. When we say, "Can a man do a certain wicked thing?" there's two ways of looking at this. And one is, does he have the physical capacity to do it on the one hand? And in many cases, almost all temptations are when we're tempted to do things that we do have the physical capacity to do. So we can do it, and Jesus, I think, physically could have stepped off the pinnacle of the temple if He wanted to. He physically could have bowed down and worshiped Satan when Satan said, "I'll give you all the kingdoms of the world." He physically could.

But there's the other thing. If you say, "Could I strangle my wife in her sleep?" Well, physically, I could probably strangle almost anyone in their sleep. It's not impossible. But could I bring myself to do it? Not in a thousand years. There's no way I could do that. Not because it's an impossibility, but simply because it's totally so much against my character, so much against my inclinations, so much against who I am that it'd be impossible for someone to make me do that. I would never do it even at gunpoint, of course.

So in a sense, it's impossible for me to do that, but it's not really physically impossible. So if we say, "Could Jesus sin?" well, it wasn't physically impossible for Him to sin. He could do it. But His character, His inclinations, His loyalty and love for His Father made it really pretty much impossible to do.

Now, the Bible does say that there is a war within each of us, and I think this war was inside Jesus, too, when He became a man. That the flesh and the spirit are at war against each other. The flesh wants one thing, the spirit wants another. Paul indicates that that's of course the battle we all face, and I believe Jesus faced that battle, too. I think there were times when His flesh was tempted with various things, to turn rocks into bread when He was starving to death, for example. His flesh would certainly be tempted, and the Bible says He was tempted.

But when you're tempted, of course, you could technically sin if you chose to agree with the temptation, but if you're determined not to, you can also not. I think the reason God can't sin is it goes totally against His character to do it. He has no desire or inclination to do it. And I think that's why Jesus didn't sin also, though I think Jesus on earth had the capacity to be weak, to succumb to tiredness, hunger, the flesh in various ways. But because of who He was, that was just something He didn't want to do.

And many Christians can, I'm sure, relate with this, although many Christians, I suppose, have greater struggles than others in some areas. But I've certainly known long periods of time—I'm not a perfect man, but I've known long periods of time where no sin that you would name would have any appeal to me. Not because I'm a perfect man, but because life is so much better without sin and because I'm so mindful of fearing God and things like that.

I've sinned in my life, but I can certainly relate with somebody being so determined to live a holy life that they would say no to temptation. There's always that possibility to do, and I think Jesus availed Himself of that possibility when many times we don't. I don't know how your Sunday school class would respond to that, but you can play this call if you want to and see what they think.

Thanks for your call, Robert. Rayma in Detroit, Michigan, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Rayma: Tonight's question is about Psalm 119:71, it is good that I was afflicted that I might learn your statues. Also Proverbs 3:12, the Lord punishes whom He loves.

Steve Gregg: He chastens, not punishes. He chastens whom He loves.

Rayma: Okay, well if you can determine or explain the difference. And then with that being said, how would a Christian know if the devil is bothering them if the Lord—it's good that we are punished, or not punished but chastened, it's good that we are afflicted—how would one know if the devil is afflicting a Christian?

Steve Gregg: Actually, it wouldn't make any difference if we did know the devil's afflicting because the devil can't afflict us without God's permission. We have the classic example of that in Job where Job was living a righteous life and the devil's trying to get him to sin and wasn't being very successful. And so he said to God, "Listen, You've put a hedge around him so I can't do anything to him. No wonder he lives a good life. I've not been able to test him and tempt him and so forth. But You let me tempt him or test him and You'll see, he won't do well."

And so God said, "Okay, go ahead. You can do this much and no more." Well, what happened then? Afflictions came on Job. This is the way the devil was testing him. This is the way the devil was tempting him. He took his family, he took his property, he took his livestock, he eventually took away his health until Job had nothing left but his wife, and she wasn't much of an encouragement to him. So he lost everything. That's affliction.

And it was the devil's doing, but we are told that behind the scenes the devil couldn't touch him at all except with the permission of God. And so Job was not mistaken when he said, "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away." Now, we know that the devil took his stuff away, but it's not incorrect to say the Lord took it away because that's what the Lord allowed to happen. It was part of God's testing of Job. The instrument of that test was Satan, but the one behind it who allowed it and could have prevented it if He wished was God.

The devil in a secondary sense often ends up doing God's will. The crucifixion of Jesus was done by demonically inspired chief priests and Pharisees and Romans and so forth. The devil was involved in that to be sure, but the Bible says that God—it pleased the Lord to bruise Him. God delivered Him to them. Jesus would not have suffered at all even though the devil wanted to do stuff to Him. There's nothing he could have done to Jesus if God had not delivered Him over.

You can see that in the cases where many people took up stones to stone Jesus earlier in His life and it said it wasn't His time yet, so He just walked through the crowd unharmed. You see, no matter how much someone wants to hurt you, whether it's the devil or people around you, they can't if God won't let them. And if God does let them, you know that it's being allowed by a God who has your best interests at heart, who loves you more than you love yourself, loves you more than anyone does, and would not allow this if this wasn't potentially for your good.

So in other words, when we say, "Well, it's good I was afflicted," the Psalmist also says in verse 75 of the same Psalm, "I know, oh Lord, that your judgments are right and in faithfulness You have afflicted me." That's Psalm 119:75 in addition to verse 71 which you quoted, "It's good for me that I've been afflicted that I may learn your statutes."

Also earlier in verse 67, the writer says, "Before I was afflicted, I went astray, but now I keep your word." Now, the affliction no doubt, the instruments of his affliction were probably bad people and very probably the devil inspiring those bad people to do harm to him. But he says, "Yeah, but before that happened, I went astray. Now I keep your word." So the devil loses. He may have done this, but he didn't get what he wanted. Now I'm more obedient to You than I was before I was afflicted. It's good for me that I was afflicted. I learned my lesson. You, God, have afflicted me. But You've done it in faithfulness because Your judgments are right.

These are the things the Psalmist says and it's in keeping with the entire teaching of the scripture on this subject. Yeah, the devil may in fact come against you. We know the devil filled Judas to betray Jesus and that led to that horrific death of Jesus on the cross. But it was also God's plan that Jesus would suffer that way or else no one could have put a finger on Him. And of course what Jesus did as a result of His suffering and His resurrection, He was exalted to the highest heaven and given a kingdom above all kingdoms.

For a day of suffering or even 33 years of suffering, I think Jesus would say it was worth it for the last 2,000 years He's been reigning at the right hand of God and will do so forever and ever after this. So a time of suffering is short. Paul said that, too, in 2 Corinthians chapter 4, where he said that our light affliction, which is but for a moment, works for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. And Romans 8:18 says, "I'm persuaded that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us."

God has something really amazing in mind for us and there's no path there except through some difficult waters, and those afflictions test us and prepare us for greater things. That's what the Bible says. Old and New Testament says the same thing.

Thank you, Rayma. Thanks for your call. James from Memphis, Tennessee, welcome.

James: Thank you for taking my call. In the book of John where John sees the Spirit descending like a dove, how do we take that to be that the Spirit took the shape of a dove when the dove was used for sacrifices, and the Spirit, that would be the wrong picture of the Spirit dying as a sacrifice? Could it be that it was not the shape but the descent of the Spirit coming down rather than the shape?

Steve Gregg: The way it's worded in John, it doesn't say that the Spirit took on the form of a dove. It says in verse 33 of John 1, "He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'" So, you know, the Holy Spirit descended. It doesn't say here that He looked like a dove, although if we say He descended like a dove, like a dove lands on something, so the Holy Spirit landed on Jesus.

If it's not talking about the visible form of that, it's not entirely clear how John could see it. But more than that, if you look at Luke chapter 3, which also records the baptism of Jesus, it says in Luke 3:22 the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon him. So it wasn't just that there's some abstract way that the descent of the Holy Spirit is similar to doves descending when they land. He came down in bodily form as a dove.

Why a dove? I think doves are considered to be pure; that's one reason they were sacrificed. But to say doves were sacrificed is not the only thing that can be said about them. Jesus said be wise as serpents but harmless as doves. To say a dove is harmless is not making reference to it as a sacrificial victim; it's just talking about their nature. Doves are often an image of peace. So I just don't know why the Holy Spirit took the form of a dove, but I do believe it took a bodily form just like God in the Old Testament took a bodily form of a man and wrestled with Jacob all night and so forth.

Let's talk to John in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Welcome to the Narrow Path, John.

John: Thanks for taking my call. I have two quick questions. One is, if you disobeyed the word of God like 40-50 years ago and at that time you didn't really know what was going on, is there—God forgives you for that? Do you go on from there or from reading the Bible, I see where it says you don't go into the Promised Land if you disobey the word of God.

Steve Gregg: Well, that was what happened to Moses when he disobeyed God's command, but that was a special case. He lived at the time when Israel was going to go in the Promised Land and he was simply denied the right to lead them. That's not exactly the same thing as saying you won't go to heaven when you die. In fact, I believe Moses probably is in heaven now.

But when you say you committed a sin or disobeyed the word of God 40 or 50 years ago, the question would be, have you repented since then? It sounds to me like you're putting a scenario where a person later does come to Christ and later realizes they've done wrong. Well, coming to Christ would include repenting. And repenting means you're really sorry that you sinned and you intend to not do that anymore. You grieve over the fact that somebody was damaged, if it was only God, but often when we sin, we sin against people as well.

That's what conversion includes. So if you've come to Christ and confessed your sins, you're forgiven of it. Now, I will say this: some of the sins we may have committed before we were Christians may be the kinds of things that we really should and can still make right. If I stole from somebody and I've just kept their goods all these years and 50 years later realize I'm still hanging on to stuff I stole from somebody, well, then if I repent I'd have to give it back, obviously.

Making restitution means that once you've repented, you certainly want to undo the damage that your sin did if you can. There are some sins you may have committed 40, 50 years ago that nothing could be done to change. In which case I think Jesus says go and sin no more. I forgive you. I don't condemn you. But obviously, it depends on the kind of sin. There are certain kinds of sins which materially wrong another person. And once we repent, we not only are sorry that we wronged them, but we may be in the position to redress it, to undo the damage, to make restitution.

And if we can, I think we should. Now, I don't think we get saved by making restitution. I think we are saved by genuine repentance. But when one is genuinely repented, it means their heart has changed. And so making restitution is what they want to do. Making every effort to pay back somebody that you've hurt is simply a mark that you are really repentant. And if there's no interest in doing so, there's some reason to question the repentance.

But when you do repent, as I said, there may be times when making restitution is simply impossible. You can't undo the damage; maybe the person's even dead by now. At 40, 50 years ago, if you did something, that person may not even be alive anymore. But depending on the kind of sin, if it was a financial sin, you may make it good to their heirs, to their estate or whatever.

No matter how long ago you sinned or how recently, if you repent genuinely and you're broken before God and you seek the mercy of God for it, He forgives. The blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin if we confess our sins, as it says in 1 John 1:9. So I count on that.

But I also would say if I have committed a sin and somehow I have never made any effort to undo the sin—at the very least to go and repent to the person that was injured and find out if there's anything that I can do to fix it—then my repentance isn't very deep. If I'm repenting at all, I want to repent completely. You want to do the real thing and not a fake thing when you're dealing with God. I hope that may help you. God bless you. Do what needs to be done.

You're listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. We are listener-supported and we pay a lot of money to radio stations in order to stay on the air. If you'd like to help us stay on the air, you can write to the Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593, or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com.