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. We have a live program so that you can call in during the broadcast itself and be a part of the show. If you have questions you'd like to ask about the Bible or the Christian faith, here on the air we'll discuss them. If you have a different viewpoint from the host, disagree and want to say so, say why, feel free to give me a call. We'd love to hear you talk about that too. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That number again, we have two lines open right now, so if you call now, you should be able to get through, 844-484-5737.

I need to announce that this weekend, I'm going to be in the Sacramento area. I'll be speaking in a number of places. I've been saying that I'm going to speak six times in three days. I'm looking at it closer, it's only five times in three days. Friday night, Saturday morning, and Saturday evening will all be in Roseville at the Westside Community Church. Then Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon, more like, with a two-hour gap between them, I'll be speaking in two different private residences. One's in Citrus Heights and one's in Lincoln.

I've spoken at both these homes before, in fact, a number of times. Obviously, since they're in private homes, we don't list the address on the website, but you can call and get the information and see if there's still room for you because it's a kind of RSVP because it is in private homes. They can accommodate a lot of people, but they do have their limits. That's this weekend in the Sacramento area. If you live up there and want to join us for any of our meetings, go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. There, you can look at our tab that says announcements. That tells where I'm speaking in various places.

You'll find all the places I just mentioned, as well as the fact that a couple of weeks later, I'll be in Michigan, speaking at quite a lot of places, a lot of different towns in Michigan. If you're in Michigan and interested in those, you may want to check out that and see just where I'll be. I might just be near you at some point. All right, let's go to the phones right now, and we'll talk to Yosi in Knoxville, Tennessee. Hi, Yosi. Good to hear from you again.

Yosi: Hey Steve, thank you. Good to hear from you. I had a question on what's been confusing to me on the timeline of when did the indwelling Holy Spirit that belongs in each believer start to dwell in them? I wanted to see if you see it the same way as I do. I see it as the indwelling Holy Spirit came just after the resurrection. For example, like in the Road to Emmaus or in John 20 where he breathed on his disciples. Then distinct from that would be the power and the gift of the Holy Spirit would come later in Pentecost. Do you see it kind of the same way as me?

Steve Gregg: I do. I think that in John chapter 20, when Jesus breathed on the twelve, actually, there weren't all twelve of them there. Thomas was not there that night, and of course, Judas was gone, so there were ten of them. When he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," this was before Pentecost by about seven weeks. Yet, it would appear that by breathing on them, he was implying that he's imparting to them the Holy Spirit at that moment.

Of course, these were the apostles. They were the leaders. It's not as if everyone who had followed him at this moment had the Holy Spirit given to them, but the apostles did, kind of ahead of the crowd. Then on Pentecost, about seven weeks later, they apparently, and everybody else who was a believer in the upper room, 120 people, they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

I do, in my own mind, recognize a distinction between just receiving the Spirit, indwelling on the one hand, and being filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the same apostles that he breathed on the night of his resurrection and said, "Receive the Spirit," 40 days later, when he was about to ascend, he said, "You'll receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you." So they hadn't yet had the power of the Spirit given to them as would be the case at Pentecost along with the rest of the church, but they did have at least the Spirit given to them earlier than the others. But the power of the Spirit was apparently something that was treated differently.

Yosi: That answers it for me. Thank you.

Steve Gregg: All right, that's all. Okay, thank you very much for your call. Good talking to you. We're going to talk next to Brian from Ontario, California. Brian, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Brian: Hi, Steve. Good afternoon. Quick question. I called last week, and we spoke about Matthew talking about "call no man rabbi, call no man your father." Your answer was great. You established that you can call your biological dad "dad" or "father," but we're not really supposed to call people that. My follow-up question to that is, I go to a church, and the pastor there, the way that they teach in this organization, they teach that you are to refer to the pastor as either "Pastor" or "Pastor" and his last name. For example, like Pastor Johnson or Pastor.

But you are not to call him brother, even though we are all brethren as the Scripture says. They don't want us calling them brother or bro. They feel like that's not giving respect to the office. Even the first lady of the church, they call her the first lady, the wife of the pastor. They want you to refer to her as sister and then her last name. For example, like Sister Johnson. Why not Your Majesty? Yes, that's what I'm saying. I want to hear your thoughts on that.

Steve Gregg: Well, of course, the pastor being required to be called Pastor, I suppose that can just be done out of tradition or custom, just like the Catholics call their priest Father. By the way, Father is more of a term of respect than Pastor, but not very much. In Protestant churches, a pastor is kind of seen as the leader and has stature. The early church didn't have a guy as the pastor. They had elders, and these elders were just brothers. Even the apostles were just brothers. Jesus said, "Don't call anyone teacher, don't be called rabbi. You're all brothers."

Now, that statement of Jesus, which of course is in Matthew 23, verses 8 through 11, it seems like it's directly against what your pastors are doing. They're saying, "Don't call me brother, call me Pastor." Jesus said, "No, don't call anyone rabbi, call them brother, your brothers." Now, it's interesting that they would have their wives be called sisters, which is appropriate. But why wouldn't they call all women sister? Why would they give the pastor some kind of special honorary title?

This is something that's no doubt church tradition, but it's a church tradition that's contrary to what Jesus said. I'm not opposed to saying that this man is a pastor of this church, or that this man is an elder in the church, or even that this man is a teacher in the church or a prophet in the church. If that's true, then there's nothing wrong with me saying that. But to address him as Pastor or Reverend or Apostle or whatever strikes me as, if I did so, I might do so with a reasonably pure heart and not be exalting him.

But if he requires me to do it, I don't see how that could in any way be understood to be with a pure heart. If he says, "Listen, calling me brother, that's not showing enough reverence to me. That's not showing enough dignity to me. You need to call me by a more dignified title." This is exactly what Jesus forbade. It's that very attitude that the Pharisees had. They loved to be called Rabbi, Rabbi in the marketplace. He says, "Don't you be called that."

So this is a very strange thing. I think it comes from the assumption that being a leader in the church is somehow an exalted position. No, it's an exalted work. It's not a position, it's a work. The Bible says those who labor among you and are over you in the faith, you should respect them for their work's sake. So they've got a work. Paul says, "He that wants the office of an overseer, or wants to be an overseer, he desires a good work." This is a work. This is not a privileged position. This is a calling that some people have. Everybody has some calling. To be called to be a pastor doesn't mean you're better than somebody who's called to be a janitor, frankly. All are equal before God.

So this is definitely a violation of what Jesus said. Now again, I'm not trying to be critical of people who out of habit call their pastor Pastor Jones or Pastor so-and-so because they've always done that all their life and it's just how they want to show respect. If they're showing respect that way, there's no problem. It's if the pastor says, "You need to show me this kind of respect." That's the problem. And that's exactly what is contrary to the teaching of Jesus and of the Spirit of Jesus.

This is the thing. Jesus said, "You call me Lord and you call me Master and you're right, I am. I am your Lord and Master, but if I, your Master, have washed your feet, then I want you to wash each other's feet." In other words, I'm a servant here. You may call me Lord and Master and that's not inaccurate, I am. But I'm not demanding dignity in that role here. I'm lowering myself, taking on the form of a servant. The Spirit of Christ is though he existed in the form of God, he didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but he emptied himself and took on the form of a servant even to the point of death on the cross.

The Spirit of Christ is the opposite of trying to preserve his dignity. When a pastor or church leader is making an issue of that, then I don't know, they need to be confronted about that. If they don't see why that's wrong, I'd probably look for another church. I don't want to be in a church where people don't know what the Spirit of Christ is. I've mentioned before that there used to be another radio talk show host like myself who took Bible questions on the air. I don't want people to get the impression that it's Hank Hanegraaff. It's not. I'm not talking about Hank Hanegraaff. There's another one.

This other man, he only did the show for a while, this is back in the 70s and I don't think he's on the air for the last few decades. But somebody called him and called him Brother John and he kind of rebuked them. He said, "What's with this smarmy familiarity? Brother John? I've earned eight degrees. I deserve to be called Doctor so-and-so." When I heard that, I thought, "Man, that's the last time I listen to this guy." How could you be more directly contrary to what Jesus taught about this subject? Now, these pastors are pretty close. Maybe they're in the same, have the same attitude he had, but I don't know. But it concerns me. It concerns me if a pastor says, "You need to call me Pastor."

I mean, think about what they're thinking. Either they're proud and want you to look up to them, or maybe they're not. Maybe they see you and them are equal, but they want to maintain control, which is easier to control if the congregation looks up to them as superiors and therefore calling somebody by a title that suggests their superiority apparently. Really, if you called them slave, I mean, Jesus said whoever's chief among you must be the slave of all. If you called them slave, I don't know if they'd object to that or not. It seems like they might because that's not an exalted sounding title. I don't want to go off on it anymore. It's just one of my pet peeves about people who are in ministry and they see it as the opposite of what it is. They see it as a privileged role, an exalted role. They don't see it as merely a service provided by a slave to the church. Therefore, the churches are in the condition they are because of that attitude, which arose centuries ago, by the way. Timothy in Everett, Washington. Hello.

Timothy: Hello. Can you hear me, Steve?

Steve Gregg: Yes, sir. Go ahead. You're on the air.

Timothy: My question's about the Book of Enoch. Last week, I was listening to it from Tuesday and somebody asked some questions about, "is it dangerous to read or not?" and just to kind of summarize what your response that I disagree with is. I agree that it's a total fraud, but then you said that maybe kind of left the door open, maybe it's okay to read if you know it's not the Bible. In 1 Timothy 1, 3 through 4, it says, "I went into Macedonia that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." So I feel strongly that it gives heed to questions, to speculation, such as you were saying, well, maybe conclusory, Jude quotes this and there's nowhere in the Bible that says Jude quotes it. There's multiple different ways that Jude could come to something that's similar or the same information like the Holy Spirit breathing it into him.

Steve Gregg: Well, he said he's quoting Enoch. He says, "Enoch said these things." Right. Okay, I hear you. So what you're saying is Enoch might have given the prophecy that Jude is referring to and it just happened to also be incorporated in the Book of Enoch later on. So it's a coincidence that Enoch actually made the prophecy and also was put in the Book of Enoch. I'm not going to dispute with you about that. I will say this, though. Giving heed to myths and giving heed to fables means believing them. Giving heed doesn't mean letting them go into your eyeball and enter your brain like any other thing.

Actually, I believe we can read the Book of Mormon. I believe we could read the Quran. In fact, many Christian apologists have. I've read parts of it myself. It's a lot of reading, so I haven't had time to read the whole thing, but I don't think it's wrong to read those. But if you give heed to it, that's a different thing. Giving heed means you're believing it. Now, I've never recommended that anyone believe the Book of Enoch. What I've said is reading it doesn't seem to be problematic if you know that it's not the Bible. Just like if you know that the Book of Mormon is not the Word of God, it doesn't hurt you to read it unless it does.

If you're weak, if your mind is weak, if you don't have discernment, if you're prone to be deceived by it, then stay away from it. Don't go into temptation to deception. I, when I read from the Book of Mormon, which I know to be false, I don't even have the slightest temptation to believe it. So I mean, maybe some people are so gullible that if they read anything that claims to be authoritative, they just buy it. Then I would say to people like that, "Don't read anything but the Bible." However, it'd be a strange thing if we made a rule for all Christians that they can't read anything except the Bible. Can't read the Iliad and the Odyssey, can't read Aesop's Fables, can't even read Pilgrim's Progress because it's not the Bible.

But I'm not, that's not where I'm at. I've got no problem reading those kinds of things. Now, if you do, then you probably shouldn't read them. But when the Bible says, "Don't give heed to those things," it means don't believe them. That's giving heed to it. He's not saying if you're in the presence of someone who's saying something that isn't the Bible, hold your ears with both hands tight because you don't want to hear those words. That's not what Paul has in mind or anyone else in the Bible. Paul quoted from Greek poets and Greek philosophers in his preaching. Some of the quotes are in our Bible. He quoted them in 1 Corinthians 15, he quoted them in the Book of Acts chapter 17, he quoted them in Titus chapter 1. Those weren't the Bible and they were pagan. They were pagan poets. But he found something in them worth quoting.

So I mean, I'm not trying to say that I'm right and you're wrong, but I mean, you can disagree with me if you want to. It doesn't really alarm me at all. But just to clarify, I don't think the verse you used makes the point that you're trying to make. I think that if you read the Book of Enoch or you read the Book of Jubilees or you read the Book of 1st and 2nd Maccabees, these are not Bible, but I don't think it's hurt people to read them unless they think it is the Bible. That's the problem. If people think it's the Word of God and it isn't, then they're being deceived. And I would say if a person is prone to be deceived and they're not very strong in their faith and not very intelligent, not very discerning, yeah, then probably you ought to limit your literature to those things that don't have any possibility of deceiving you. Thanks for your call. All right, let's talk next to Abby from Oak Grove, California. Hi, Abby. Welcome.

Abby: Hi, Steve. My question is, or what are your thoughts on medical malpractice and asking them to remedy the medical issues that came from the malpractice, not necessarily or more like not asking for money, but more so fixing the medical issue that happened?

Steve Gregg: Well, okay. I'm not against holding doctors accountable for mistakes they've made, especially since they get paid a lot for it. And because the one reason they get paid so much is they're paying malpractice insurance companies because they do sometimes get sued. Now, I've never sued anybody, even the guy who through his accidental or through his careless driving accidentally killed my wife back in 1980. I wouldn't sue because I just thought he doesn't have the money. Now, I've never been in a position to sue a corporation.

In 1 Corinthians 6, of course, we're told not to take each other to court and that Christians should settle their differences through arbitration with a Christian tribunal. But of course, a medical practice is not necessarily Christian, not brothers. It's not that we're penalizing them per se, we're holding them accountable to be sure. I think that if a medical doctor is doing irresponsible stuff and people are getting hurt, and even if it's you that got hurt, you can be concerned that he not do that to people and hold them accountable. So like you said, you're not trying to get rich off them, which is good. But if you're trying to get him to repair the problem, I'm not sure I'd go to the same person if he showed incompetence, but might have him pay to have some competent doctor fix it for you. I don't think you're wrongheaded to hold a doctor responsible if they were plainly in the wrong and you suffered at their hands.

Abby: Yes, I don't think they necessarily did it on purpose, but because of them not taking the necessary precautions, a lot of things happened that at the end of the day, I have kidney loss and I'm suffering with that besides other things. But that's the only thing that could be fixed. And I've just been struggling with that, but like I said, I do not want the money, just fix the thing.

Steve Gregg: Right. You're not trying to get rich off them. Yeah, I think first of all, you paid them for what they did, right? And then they did the wrong thing? Okay, well, you paid for a service you didn't receive. You paid to have something fixed and it didn't get fixed. So to require them to fix it without further payment is perfectly just, I think. All right, sister. Sorry about your medical issue there. Sounds like a nightmare. All right, Abby. God bless you. We have another half hour coming up so everybody who's waiting online, we will get to your call in the second half hour. And right now I'm looking at one open line, so if you want to get on in the second half hour of the program, you can call now at 844-484-5737.

I want to just remind you that the Narrow Path, which has been on the air daily for 29 years, is listener-supported. We have no commercial breaks. We don't sell anything. You can't buy anything from me. I have books that you can get at Amazon, but you can't buy them from me. I won't sell them because we're not a business. And we are simply a ministry and we give out the Word of God, freely we've received from Christ and freely we wish to give. But we do have to pay for radio time. The radio stations are businesses that need to pay their bills and their employees and therefore they charge for the ministries that are on there. And we're on about 100 of them almost, so our costs are very high. Anyway, we guarantee that if you donate to the Narrow Path, we will use your money to buy radio time and nothing else. There's no payroll here. No one's paid anything. There's no overhead, there's no offices, no secretaries, none of that. And so every dollar you give is going to buy airtime so that other people can listen to the program in the future.

So if you'd like to help us out to stay on the air, you can write to the Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California 92593. Once again, that's the Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California 92593. You can also donate if you want from our website. But our website actually is just loaded with resources that are all free. As I say, we don't sell anything, but we sure got a lot there for free. Like 1500 lectures, my lectures verse by verse through the Bible, my lectures on hundreds of topics as well. I've heard there's about 1500 lectures there. They're all free. There's other stuff there too. You should check it out. It's thenarrowpath.com. You don't have to donate, just take what you want that's at the website and we're glad for you to have it. You can also donate if you want at thenarrowpath.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds and we have another half hour together. Don't go away.

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 have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or difference of opinion from the host, we welcome you always to call. The number is 844-484-5737. And our next caller today is Mike from San Diego, California. Hi Mike, welcome to the Narrow Path.

Mike: Okay. I just wanted to agree with you, actually, and I just had a comment about salvation where once you're saved, you should see a change. And I was completely excited about going to church. My sister had bugged me and I finally took the plunge and went. But the one thing that I struggled with and it's just, I'll try to make it short because I'll talk all day, but they go, "You'll be a new person in Christ." And I was looking forward to it. This is great. What was funny is that I didn't realize how quickly that was happening. My dad bought me a Bible. I was going to church. I didn't see the little stuff. I probably had a drinking problem. I probably swore the Lord's name. That was just me. And I started going to church and still doing this stuff, swearing, drinking, but it took me maybe a couple three months and that kind of went away. But I looked back on it, almost right away, the fact that I was attending a church, I had darkened the door of the church, I was going to church, that was something. I didn't see it then, but I was thinking the big stuff. The big stuff kind of did happen after a fashion, but I didn't see I have a Bible now. That was new. I'm sitting here in a church. So I just thought it was kind of neat when I hear people's testimonies or you guys touched on it I think last week. I love hearing people's testimony and I think it's a common thing, people doubting their salvation, but I totally get it. Here I was going to church and I was becoming the new person in Christ right away and didn't realize it.

Steve Gregg: Amen, brother. All right. Yeah, I know very well what it's like. I've seen many, many lives changed like that. I myself changed tremendously, especially when I got baptized in the Spirit. I was born again as a child, I mean I came to Christ as a child and baptized when I was 12 and I never walked away from Christ, but I did get filled with the Spirit when I was 16. Like you said, changes happened without my necessarily even consciously trying to make anything change. It was just God changes you. And that's why it's so important for people to make sure that they really are converted when they believe they have been saved because conversion will make changes in your life. If you think it's going to make you perfect overnight, you're going to have to realize that that's not necessarily the case. In fact, it isn't the case. It may change many things dramatically overnight and other things that for some people change quickly may take a longer time. But you will change. Your orientation will be toward God and the things of God instead of toward your flesh and the things of the world. That's one thing that is part of being converted. And then of course the habits you do, probably over the rest of your life that you'll probably beginning becoming sensitized to habits that need to change and that God will change as you allow him to do it. Well, thank you brother for your testimony there.

Mike: I just wanted to be with the agreement with you. Thank you so much.

Steve Gregg: Yeah, I appreciate it, bro. God bless. Okay, we'll talk to Troy in Hampton, Virginia. Hi Troy, welcome.

Troy: Hi Steve. My question is about whether there's a balance that needs to be made for churches that are welcoming to sinners and tax collectors while also being a holy congregation of believers. And the reason I ask is that my church calls itself a church for the unchurched. We want you here, be welcome even if you don't believe. We want you to bring your gay friends, your non-believers, assuming the strategy is that once they get in, we can work on them. And I'd just love to hear your comments.

Steve Gregg: Well, you know, there's two different ways that the church is viewed by different people. One is it's kind of a religious meeting that's a big tent that welcomes everyone in and especially eager for non-saved people to come in so they can be evangelized. The other is the biblical view of the church, that is it's the body of Christ. The church is made up of people who've been born again, they're disciples of Jesus. They gather in order to be edified, to be instructed in the way of life, to exercise their gifts in ministry to each other. It's a Christian society. It's not for the unbeliever.

In the New Testament, the church was comprised only of people who had surrendered to Christ and been baptized. And baptism was the entry into the church. And if they weren't baptized, they weren't in the church. And if they weren't believers, they weren't baptized. So in other words, the church in the Bible is the body of Christ, which means every member of it is part of Christ. The Spirit of Christ is in every member of his body and every member of his body obeys the head. That's the point of being a body, is that the head gives you instructions and you carry them out and that you become the vehicle for the operation of what the head wants to do on earth. That's what a body is.

And so, I mean, the church in the Bible is not a big tent religious meeting. That is more like an evangelization effort. It's like an outreach, a mission, a crusade, perhaps. Now, can a church do both? Well, I think they can. But one of the problems we have is the biblical idea of being a church is kind of unfamiliar to a lot of people because of this cultural idea that church is just the building on the corner that holds meetings on Sunday and bring all your friends, bring all your unsaved friends, maybe they'll get saved there and stuff like that. Well, that's not what a church meeting is, but that's what we think of church as in many cases.

The church should define itself as a body of believers who gather specifically for the edification of one another and the building up and the instruction and the mutual ministry one to another. That's what the church is. Now, a church that is that can also have meetings scheduled for evangelism, for outreach. I mean, supposing a church owns a building, for example, most of them probably do. Well, one could have their church, let's say, Sunday morning or any other time during the week. They could have their principal church gathering at a given time and have another time scheduled a meeting where bring your unsaved friends, we're going to evangelize. This is not going to be a church meeting, this is going to be an evangelistic meeting. There is a difference.

In the early church, they did their evangelism outside of the church. And when people got converted, they baptized them and brought them inside the church. That is normative because if we don't do it that way, then the church just becomes nothing in particular. Just as I said, a religious meeting that's got half unbelievers in it, a church meeting, that's very confusing. How would anyone know what the church really is if that's what you're calling it? In other words, church then becomes defined by the building and the meeting, whereas the real church is defined by the people who are Christ's body, who are doing the will of God and meeting together to worship Christ from a pure heart and things like that.

So, I mean, if the church is simply an organization that owns a building and has scheduled meetings, then that's not really what the church is in the Bible. The church is a family, it's a society of obedient disciples is what the church is in the Bible. Now, I would prefer if we're going to continue to have evangelistic outreach in the churches to not call those meetings church because that gets confusing then. If you call a meeting that's got half unbelievers in it a church meeting, that strikes me as very confusing. How would anyone know what the church really is if that's what you're calling it?

So I'm not against, now by the way, if an unbeliever is more likely to come to a meeting on a Sunday morning than some other time during the week, maybe the church should have its church meetings on Saturday night or Sunday night or midweek or something like that and have the Sunday meeting just be called outreach. You know, this is our outreach meeting. There's nothing in the Bible that says church has to meet on Sunday morning or any other given time. So, if the unbeliever is never going to come to the building unless it's a Sunday morning, then I guess a church could decide whether they want to redefine their Sunday morning.

But you know, it should never be thought that unrepentant sinners who have not embraced Christ and are not his disciples somehow belong to the church. They don't. They're outsiders. They can come in by repentance and salvation, but they don't belong to the church. And so a church says, well we're a big, we're an affirming church for the unchurched. No, there's not a church for the unchurched because if unchurched means people who aren't in fellowship with the body of Christ, well they don't belong in the church. The church is for believers.

Now there are, by the way, there are believers who don't regularly go to a church meeting, not because they wouldn't, but because they haven't found one that really works for their family or whatever or is suitable. But the point I'm making is, if the unchurched means people who have been staying home all the time, avoiding the church because they have no affinity with it and they have no interest in salvation or following Jesus, well those there shouldn't be a church for those people because then the word church becomes highly compromised and no one knows what it means. Yeah, I think that we should get back to the time where the church means the body of Christ, the fellowship of the saints. And church things are done there, that is the gifts of the Spirit, the feeding, the teaching to observe all things Jesus commanded. These are things that are supposed to be done in making disciples. And I believe evangelism should be reserved for some other time. So anyway, if a church is saying, well our main church meeting is Sunday morning and please bring as many unbelievers as you can, well then when are you going to have a real church meeting? If your Sunday morning is a time when you're reaching out to the unbeliever, when are the believers going to be fed? When are the believers going to get together and do what the body of Christ is supposed to do? This is something that I don't know how many pastors have thought this through because we have so many traditions we follow, we don't even ask whether we're doing what the Bible teaches to do. Anyway, those are my thoughts on that. I appreciate your call.

All right, we're going to talk next to Lorraine from Fairfield, California. A lot of California callers today. Hi, Lorraine. Welcome.

Lorraine: Hello. Thank you for your ministry again, Steve. I'm assuming believers were Jewish when Jesus was very young, he was a Jew. My question is about John and Jesus' time in the wilderness. Why did John in his youth go there and did it have any reflection on Jesus' 40 days there? I started a study in Mark today and we briefly discussed John's time in the wilderness. Supposedly, he was out there for 30 years.

Steve Gregg: Well, now, you're saying why did they do that? Are you saying this is somehow connected to you mentioning they're Jewish or are you saying that it seems strange that they as Jews would do that? Or is it just strange that anyone would do that?

Lorraine: No, but I mean Christianity wasn't a thing then. So I'm assuming John was raised Jewish too?

Steve Gregg: Of course. Yeah, his parents were priests. I mean, his father was a priest and his mother was descendant from Aaron also, so he was born in a priestly family. And under the law, he would have served as a priest also when he would turn age 30. But he was called to a prophetic ministry and at age 30, he began to preach more like a prophet than a priest. There were plenty of priests to go around. They had plenty of time to rotate them in the temple and stuff and what they did. But yeah, John was born of a priestly family and would be a priest. Ezekiel was that way too. Ezekiel was born a priest, but at age 30 he was called to be a prophet and he happened to be in Babylon where there was no temple to serve at, so he didn't have any priestly duties to do there.

But yes, occasionally somebody, a Jew, would have a special calling, a prophetic calling or something like that. Jesus, of course, being the Messiah, was kind of that way too. He was called to a special prophetic, messianic calling. So both of them had reason to separate themselves at least some of the time from ordinary society to cultivate their relationship with God. In John's case, John lived in the wilderness in order to illustrate something about his ministry. A lot of the prophets in the Old Testament had to do things, symbolic things that were kind of a picture of their message. Hosea had to marry a woman who's unfaithful and then take her back to illustrate God's taking back Israel after she was unfaithful. Jeremiah put an actual ox yoke over his neck to say that Judah was going to go into Babylon and bear the yoke of bondage there. A lot of these prophets had to do unusual things. Ezekiel did a lot of them that illustrate their message.

John the Baptist, his was fulfilling Isaiah chapter 40, which says, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord." And so he went out in the wilderness as a voice and was crying in the wilderness to call attention to the fulfillment of that prophecy in Isaiah 40. And we know that that prophecy was central to it because that prophecy is quoted in all four of the Gospels about John the Baptist. Anyway, Jesus, I think only, Jesus didn't spend much time in the wilderness. He did fast for 40 days before he began his public ministry, which illustrates the need to be in the presence of God and be filled with his presence and so forth before you go out in society to try to reach people for God. Anyway, the Bible doesn't tell us all the reasons they did that. But there were Jews, I mean Elijah did the same thing. Elijah lived in the wilderness. There were lots of prophets in the Old Testament who lived kind of separate lives from ordinary society because society was corrupt. And John the Baptist and Jesus did that too. John more than Jesus.

Lorraine: All right, thank you.

Steve Gregg: All right, thanks for your call, Lorraine. Let's talk next to Neon from Paramount, California. Neon, welcome.

Neon: Hi Steve. Yes, I am into numbers and I know the Bible is into numbers. I know the number 40 is important. So my question to you is, in the Book of Numbers, for you, what is the most important verse you think in the Book of Numbers?

Steve Gregg: Well, I've never been one to pick out individual verses from books and say this is the most important verse in this book. I've known people who do that. There's a school that teaches through the Bible and the students are encouraged to find a key verse in every book they study. First of all, I don't know that any of these books were written by authors who planned on there being a key verse of their book. It's nice if you can find a verse that kind of summarizes everything in the book. Sometimes you can in a way, but I don't think that's the way the Bible was written. I don't think the Bible was written, first of all, the Bible wasn't even divided into verses, so that was done later. So it wasn't as if the writers thought, "Oh, I hope people memorize this verse and recognize this is the really important one."

I believe that there's a multitude of very important verses. I think Numbers, of course, may have a larger number of verses that aren't very important to us because it's got chapter after chapter which have merely the census numbers. This tribe had this many, this tribe had that many people over 20 and under 60 or whatever. And so you've got a lot of data there that isn't particularly spiritual in nature. But you do have important stories there too. I think the stories in chapters 11 and 12 are pretty important. I wouldn't pick one verse out of them, but I do think those are pretty important. Also, chapters 13 and 14, of course, when Israel turns back from the land and has to wander for 40 years in the wilderness. That's pretty important. There's just very many important parts. And then there's interesting other kinds of things too, like I think chapter 5 or 6, if I'm not mistaken, are the ones that have the Nazirite vow and that kind of stuff, the leper procedures and so forth. Anyway, no, I don't know of one verse in any book that I'd say, "Oh, that's the most important verse in the book." The truth is I've gotten a lot out of many of the verses in every book. So to qualify one as the best is something I would not be in a position to do. There's too many that would be ranking up there for me. I appreciate your call, though. Roderick from Everett, Washington. Welcome to the Narrow Path.

Roderick: Hi Steve. Thank you for taking my call. I'm the guy who called last time about the whistling song and thank you for waking me up every day. I got that from my alarm clock. So my question is, I don't know if you know about Amir Tsarfati from the Behold Israel?

Steve Gregg: No.

Roderick: I think he has a million followers. My question is about he still insisting on that the Israel of today is the chosen people. What's your view on that?

Steve Gregg: Well, he certainly is not alone in his assertion that the nation of Israel today is somehow God's chosen people. What do I say about it? Well, I'd say I can't find that in the Bible. Israel was chosen, to be sure. But sometimes when we talk about someone being chosen, we think of that as strictly they were chosen for salvation or chosen for special privileges, special to be above other people in stature and earthly wealth and so forth or in heaven. When God chose people, it means he chose them to do something. There's something he had for them to do. It's just like when we, the word elect and choose are the same words in the Greek and the Hebrew as each other. Elect. When we elect a president, we're not just affirming him, we're asking him to do a job. If he's not going to do the job, we'd rather put somebody else in there.

Israel was chosen for a job. And when Abraham was first told about this in Genesis 12:1-3, there were privileges of it. He was going to be a great man and God would have his back if people cursed him, God would curse them, and if people blessed him, God would bless them. Those are good things. But his purpose was to become the father of many nations and to bring forth a seed through whom all the families of the earth would be blessed. According to Galatians chapter 3, that seed was Christ. And it is through Christ that all the nations are blessed through the Gospel.

Therefore, Abraham was chosen for that purpose, to bring forth the Messiah to the world. And his offspring eventually did. And so while they had not yet done this, this was still their mission. This is what they were chosen for. But when Jesus came, they fulfilled their mission, at least part of it. The important part was that they brought the Messiah in the world. The second thing they were supposed to do is to embrace him, to accept him as their Messiah. Now they didn't do that for the most part, some of them did. The ones who did are what we call the faithful remnant of Israel. They became the followers of Jesus and later they're called the church in the Bible.

But and they still are the chosen because they are now continuing to bring the blessing of Christ to the nations. All the families of the earth are to be blessed in Christ and the church is the agency through which this is being done. It's not being done through Israel. It can't be done through Israel because Israel doesn't receive Christ. Only those in Christ can carry out this mission. So some Jews are Christians and they're and along with us Gentiles who are also in Christ, they make up the church, the body of Christ, and they are doing the work of Christ, bringing the blessing of the Gospel to all nations.

The Jews who are not Christians, they're not bringing the Gospel to anyone. They don't even haven't even received it themselves. They're just like any other nation that rejects Christ. Now, the Bible indicates that there's the same penalties for those who reject Christ whether they're Jew or Gentile and the same blessings for those who receive Christ whether they're Jew or Gentile. Paul goes into that in Romans 2, verses 5-10, where he makes it very clear that the same behavior will receive the same judgment to the Jew and also to the Gentile. He says because God doesn't have any partiality. And so God doesn't have partiality toward one race over another. He has partiality toward Jesus and those who are in him.

So when we say, "well, do you believe that the nation of Israel in the Middle East today, that's the chosen people?" Chosen for what? Jesus is the chosen one, and they haven't chosen him. They haven't accepted him. So what possible service would God have for them if it doesn't involve them being saved and part of the church? Now, every Jew on the planet, including those in Israel, can become Christians. They can follow Christ. That's what they should have done back 2000 years ago. That's what a relatively few Jews have done throughout the past 2000 years. Fortunately, their numbers have added up to probably hundreds of thousands, if not more. But the majority of Jews simply don't receive Christ. And that that would describe the ones primarily who inhabit the Middle Eastern country called Israel.

And if a person doesn't receive Christ, they don't have any status as chosen. What would they be chosen for? God has one mission on earth, and that is to redeem all people in Christ. And the Jews who don't believe in Christ are not involved in that mission. And there's no Plan B mission for them. There's no additional kind of mission that God's concerned about. So it has nothing to do with their race, really. This is not something, I'm not saying something bad about Jews. The same could be said about the Irish or the Chinese or the Nigerians. If they don't receive Christ, they've got no role in God's purpose in the earth. And that includes Jews who don't receive Christ. They're not any different. And that's what Jesus said, that's what Paul said, that's what the whole Bible teaches. Anyway, I hope that's understandable. All right, we're almost out of time. Maybe I can just take a little bit of time with CJ in Plymouth, Michigan. We only have about a minute. Go ahead.

CJ: Yeah, I was wondering there's so many pastors that teach that Lucifer was the most beautiful angel, the leader of worship in heaven, had all these privileges and he ended up being Satan, but I can't find in the Bible.

Steve Gregg: I can't either. Yeah, Lucifer, first of all, if you have a King James version or New King James version, you'll find the name Lucifer in one passage, Isaiah 14:12. If you don't have those versions, you probably won't find the word Lucifer at all because Lucifer's not actually a name. Lucifer is more like a title. It means shining one, morning star, it has those kinds of meanings. Jesus is called that too, by the way, in Revelation 22. Not because it's a name, it's not. It's a title. He is the King. He's the glorious one. He's the illustrious one. Well, the King of Babylon was called by that title in Isaiah chapter 14. He is not identified with the devil anywhere. The word Lucifer is not found anywhere else in the Bible besides Isaiah 14:12, and then it's only found in a few translations like the King James and the New King James, which failed to translate it. Modern translators have done what should have been done in the first place. I'm out of time. Sorry to say. You're listening to the Narrow Path, our website thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.