20260317

You

Good afternoon and welcome to the narrow path for a new broadcast.

My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour, each week, day, afternoon, taking

your calls.

If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, or you disagree with the

host of one to defend an alternate viewpoint, we welcome you to call.

The number to call is 844-484.

5737.

That's 844-484.

5737.

Many of you know I'm this week speaking of a variety of places in the Santa Cruz area.

I'm speaking for youth with a mission school in the Santa Cruz mountains.

I'm also speaking other places while I'm up in the northern part of the state.

From tomorrow night, I'm speaking in Santa Cruz at the Paso Tampo Inn.

It's open to the public.

Information is on our website.

On Friday night, I'll be speaking in Monterey and Saturday night in San Jose or Morgan Hill,

actually.

And so those are all open to the public, I think.

I mean, you can go to our website and see how to join us there.

It's a time and place and so forth.

At our website, thenarrowpath.com.

Under the tab that says, announcements.

Now, tomorrow afternoon, I'm going to be interviewed on a secular radio station in Santa Cruz.

I used to have a radio program on this station.

It's K-S-C-O in Santa Cruz.

It's a secular station, but I used to have a Sunday night program called The Road to Find Out.

For about a year, I had Sunday night programs on it.

And I became acquainted with the many people at the station, most of whom were not Christians.

One of them, the guy who is my call screener, has his own show in the afternoons now.

And he and I really got along really well.

I really enjoyed him.

He's had me on his program to interview me before.

And he'll have me on tomorrow, too.

His name is Dave.

His on air name is Dave Michaels.

That's not his real name, but Dave Michaels show on K-S-C-O tomorrow

from five to six.

He'll be interviewing me.

And then when that ends, like about an hour later, we have our Santa Cruz meeting at Pasadample.

Most of you are not in Santa Cruz or near there, but some of you may be.

And if you're interested in that fact, look up where I'll be and join us.

We'd love to see you there.

And I don't have to say anything more about that right now. We need to go to the phones.

Our first caller today is Barbara from Roseville, Michigan.

Barbara, welcome to the narrow path.

Next caller.

Thank you.

Thank you for taking my call.

No question is out of act 238 where it says repit and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ

for the remission of sins, recognizing that remissions means forgiveness or removal of sins.

Do you believe that God meant what He said when He said that this particular baptismal process

would forgive and remove sins and outhang up and listen?

Thank you.

Okay, Barbara, thanks for your call.

First of all, I do believe God always means what He says, though He doesn't always say it

in terms that are unambiguous, so that's why we study the Bible.

We don't only read it.

The Bible is written in a way that doesn't just yield its complete information to a casual reader.

And we need to come to the Word of God very reverently, very seriously, and very diligently to study it.

And when it comes to baptism and repentance and salvation, these are subjects that the Bible talks about

lots of places, especially the New Testament, talks about these things.

And you don't get the whole teaching on a subject from a single verse, so sometimes it may seem like a verse that says the whole thing.

But also, sometimes the phraseology can be taken one way or a different way, depending on what is intended in the passage

and also what the rest of the scripture would shed light on it to mean.

For example, in the passage you're talking about, which is Acts 2.38, the people asked Peter after he preached this

for a sermon on Pentecost. They said, what must we do?

And he said to them, repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,

and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now there's three things he said to do, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now he said that the repenting and being baptized, you do that for the remission of sins.

Now, is it the repenting or the baptism that remits the sins? That's the question.

He put those two together, you repent, and you be baptized because you're required to do both.

But is it both of them together? Is it just the second one? Is it the first one? What is it that is for the remission of sins?

Many people, like yourself, I believe, would say, well, he's saying you have to be baptized for the remission of your sins.

But that's only part of the statement. You need to repent and be baptized and receive the Spirit.

And this process, especially repentance and baptism, is for the remission of sins.

In my opinion, it's for repentance more than the baptism that is focused on as the remission of sins.

And the reason is, because Peter preached another sermon, the very next chapter,

and he told them that they need to repent and turn to God, and their sins will be blotted out.

He said, and he doesn't actually mention baptism there as blotting out their sins.

But turning to God is that which he says will blot out their sins.

So, you know, we got two sermons in two chapters from Peter, the same guy.

And both of them talk about blotting out or remitting sins.

Both of them mention repentance or turning to God as the means of sins being blotted out.

One of them also mentions baptism. It's kind of a tag on when you repent, you get baptized.

Now, what if you repent but you don't get baptized? Well, shame on you, you should be baptized, it's commanded.

But is it the baptism or is it the repentance that results in the blotting out of the sins?

Well, you know, repentance has mentioned both places as connected with it.

Baptism has mentioned one of them, and it makes me think that the repentance is the main thing,

because it says in chapter 3 verse 19, this is Peter's second recorded sermon,

he says, repent therefore and be converted. That your sins may be blotted out.

Okay, so repent and be converted so your sins will be blotted out.

The previous chapter, he said, repent to be baptized for the remission of sins.

What I understand is this. A person is saved by turning to God.

A person is saved by giving their heart to God.

When they give their heart to God, that's repenting and believing in Him.

They also are committed to doing the will of God, because that's what turning into God involves.

Now, they are supposed to get baptized to that point too, and in difficult times, they always did.

However, what if they didn't know they could be baptized?

And they gave their heart to God that no one told them to be baptized,

with their sins not be blotted out. I personally think they would be,

but there's no excuse for somebody not being told to be baptized.

Unfortunately, we live at a time where the church does many things for which there's no excuse.

Many churches don't even teach repentance as a necessity,

and there's some who don't teach baptism as a necessity.

There's just lots of different off-balance teachings in the church.

Now, if a person turns to God with all their heart and genuinely repents

and becomes a follower of Christ, but no one ever told them they're supposed to be baptized,

I believe they're saved even though they haven't been baptized.

Now, it's subnormal. Being baptized is normal.

Lots of things are normal, but some lots of people's experiences subnormal.

I don't believe that a person is saved because they got baptized.

I believe they get saved because their heart is turned to God. That's what repentance is.

And then, of course, what comes from that is their obedience to God as best they know to obey.

Obviously, people don't know intuitively whatever God wants them to do.

Nobody knows instinctively if they've never been preached to that being baptized is commanded.

But if they do know it and they're converted, they'll be baptized.

But sometimes people are saved before the baptized.

We see this in Acts chapter 10.

When Peter was preaching the gospel in the House of Cornelius,

they weren't baptized at that point and the Spirit came upon them and they're regenerated.

Apparently, they believe Peter's words and they apparently in their hearts turned to God because of it.

And he poured out his Spirit on them.

And Peter acknowledged this is strange because they weren't baptized.

But he said, who can withhold water from these who have received the Holy Spirit same as we have?

So he commanded them to be baptized.

Now, what this is is great is baptism is commanded.

But people are sometimes saved before their baptized as in the case of the House of Cornelius.

And that means it's not baptism itself that saves.

Now, I realize that first Peter 3 verse 20 says that baptism saves us.

But Peter who wrote that also was the one in the House of Cornelius

who recognized these people had been saved and received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized.

How do we harmonize all that?

Well, because the holistic teaching of the scripture is not just a list of principles or to do lists.

Basically, there's a holistic idea of what it means to be saved.

And when you have been saved, you've turned to Christ and you're committed to Him.

This turning to Christ involves a series of things.

Repenting, believing, being baptized, receiving the Holy Spirit.

All of those things were part of the whole package.

And so it was not impossible for them to speak of believing as if that's the only thing or repenting as if that's the only thing.

Or being baptized as if that's the only thing.

Everybody knew who, when they thought of baptism, they were thinking of the day they believed and repented and were baptized and received the Spirit.

When they believed, that's the day they repented and believed they were baptized and received the Spirit.

In other words, the holistic experience of salvation included all these things.

But any one of them could be mentioned in connection with the moment of salvation.

Now, as far as which of those things blooded out sin,

if we think salvation simply means the blooding out of sin, then we don't have a complete understanding of salvation in the Bible.

Blooding out sin is certainly justification, but that's not all there is of salvation.

Salvation isn't just justification.

It's sanctification, it's transformation.

It's being conformed to the image of Christ.

It's a life of a different way of living.

It's walking in the Spirit. These are all part of what salvation is in the Bible.

And it is sometimes summarized in a single word only because they didn't want to say all the words every time.

They didn't have to. All those things went together in their minds.

So when Peter said in 1 Peter 3, a baptism now says us, what it means is when we got baptized, we got saved.

And that whole process of baptism, having repented and believed and being baptized, that all happened within minutes or hours of each other.

That was when they were saved.

They didn't separate individual parts of that experience and say, oh, this is the part that saves me and the other parts don't.

And I think that's where some people read Peter wrong there.

They think he's saying, it's the baptism itself that saves.

No, it's Christ who saves. Rituals don't say.

But if you're following Christ and he tells you to be baptized, you'll do that.

And that's, you know, so you say, yes, do I believe God meant what he said?

I do. I do, but I understand that you can read a passage and take it to mean something when it really is more nuanced than that.

And it has to be understood more in its context, especially of the whole teaching of Scripture on the same subject.

Because it's very often the case that a subject will be something will be said about it briefly in a passage.

And you might get the impression, well, that's the whole picture.

And it isn't. There's much more to it than just that one thing.

It's just part of it.

All right. I need to move along and talk to some other scholars here.

Let's talk to Gary and Las Vegas Nevada.

Gary wants to say that.

Yeah, I certainly am. Yes.

I had a question about telling people that you're praying for them.

I mean, it appears in Scripture like the introduction to Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Paul mentions that he's praying for these people and what he's praying about for them.

My question is more like for people that are on your prayer list, you regularly pray for,

but you haven't seen them in a long time, sort of a distant well, something like that.

It would seem that you would want their life, if we believe in the efficacy of prayer, that their life would be better because we are praying for them.

And it would be good for them to know that God is blessing them.

It's not just, you know, that their circumstances are better.

From inside, what do you think?

Well, initially you said you were going to ask about telling people you're praying for them and then it seemed to take another direction.

Are you wondering what we should tell people that we're praying for them?

Are you asking what we should expect and what we pray for people?

I know what we should tell them.

Well, like you said, Paul told them that he was praying for them.

I think there's a command when you pray for someone to tell them you're doing it.

As if you're negligent by not doing it, you can tell them or not.

You might say what's the point of telling them.

I would say when Paul told them that he's praying for them, he did so.

As I mean to say, I'm not forgetting you.

I'm not with you, but as I'm not physically with you.

But being encouraged, you're still on my mind.

I'm still offering up my petitions for you to God.

So it's not as if you're abandoned there without me there.

I'm carrying your concerns in my heart and presenting them to God on your behalf.

I think it's just to encourage them to know they're being prayed for, which is helpful to know.

But if you don't tell them, you haven't done anything wrong by not telling them.

I would assume one needs to be careful.

Be careful that we're not praying for them because we want credit or something like that.

But I'm a holy guy and I'm doing this for you, right?

Well, the Bible doesn't treat prayer as if it's something that is a,

something you get brought in here or that you have some better status because you pray.

Prayer is something you do because you're weak because you're needy.

It's a child crying out to his father or her father for assistance.

To say, I'm asking God to help you.

I'm asking God to help me too.

You know, it's not a boast.

When you say, I'm praying, you're not saying, I'm engaged in a virtuous spiritual discipline,

which maybe you don't pray as much as I do.

And if you don't, you're not as virtuous as I am because I'm doing a very spiritual thing by praying.

I think with Paul, he didn't think of prayer as a discipline or as a virtue that you get brownie points for,

or that people should congratulate you for doing.

I think you pray in reality because you're needy and because you need God's help.

And it's more of a confession of dependency and a confession of weakness.

So it's not, I mean, I realize there are many religious people who don't pray much.

And in many cases, they feel a little guilty about that.

I think it was Charles Spurgeon who said, if you ever want to make a Christian man feel guilty,

ask him about his prayer life, which is a very sad thing to say because I think he's right.

Almost all Christians don't pray as much as they feel they probably should.

And therefore, if you find that someone prays a lot, you know, I say, wow, they're a more spiritual person than I am.

Well, maybe they're praying because they're not more spiritual because they need more spiritual strength.

They need more spiritual assistance.

They need, I mean, that is a spiritual attitude which every Christian, of course, should have.

But the amount of praying you do doesn't tell how spiritual you are.

Muslims pray a great deal.

Seven times a day or something toward Mecca.

I mean, there's a lot of praying going on in many religions.

But a lot of them don't really even have a relationship with God through Christ.

So praying itself, though it is a religious discipline in all religions, even in Christian religions,

is not intended by God to be a religious discipline.

It's supposed to be a relational reaching out of a child to a father and connecting in this position of dependency.

And if I say I'm praying for you, I guess I don't know if I tell people that very often, maybe I should tell them more,

but I don't expect them to say, wow, are you ever spiritual?

I would have just expect them to say, well, good, I'm praying for Me too.

I'm glad to have you, you know, agreeing with me in prayer.

I don't, you know, I'm not seeing it the way you're suggesting.

But I'll tell you this, if I tell someone I'm praying for them, the last thing on my mind is,

now they'll think I'm quite spiritual because I'm praying maybe more than they are.

The truth is, I probably don't pray enough.

I mean, I agree with Spurgeon, you know, if you want to ask me about my prayer life, well, I pray.

I pray, but I could be a little embarrassed that I don't pray more fervently or more often,

or with greater faith, or more hours of the day, or something.

But that's only something to be embarrassed about if the reason you're not praying more

is that you're not trusting God, and God is not in your thoughts,

or if you're thinking of prayer time as a religious discipline for which you get some kind of credits,

both of which I think are not good.

I think we should pray very naturally.

We should walk with God, be conscious of God all the time, be offering our petitions up to Him, you know,

throughout the day as we're going through the day.

I love Nehemiah's prayer life in the book of Nehemiah.

He's an administrator, kind of a governor, kind of a guy.

He's also a building contractor, building the walls of Jerusalem.

He's a busy guy. He's practical.

He's a great leader.

And people are always bugging him and interrupting him, and criticizing him and accusing him.

And he just shoots up a prayer to God just as he's doing his work.

That's what's interesting about the book of Nehemiah.

It's telling his story by him. He's telling the story.

But when he tells about, you know, this person came against me, this person is lying to me,

and he just says, oh Lord, remember me, remember the integrity of my heart,

you know, I'm not guilty of what they're saying.

And he just keeps the worker.

If you saw Filler in the roof, I always appreciate Tevye, the main character of that,

how he's mucking out the barn, he's talking out loud to God,

just like he would if God was sitting there on the loft, conversing with him.

And that's, to me, that's a good prayer life.

Now, if you get up early in the morning and you go into your closet and shut their door

and get on your knees and pray for two hours before you do anything else,

many spiritual people have done that.

I would not speak evil of that.

Actually, I actually envy people who've been able to do that.

My prayer life is much more connected with my daily life.

And because, you know, it's like if I was walking with a friend all day long,

I'd be conversing on and off naturally about whatever's on my mind.

And that's kind of how prayer was for like me and Maya, and probably Jesus too.

Jesus did spend time in prayer.

That is, he got up early and went off to pray alone so he could talk to his father, undistracted.

But he also shot up prayers spontaneously.

He read of it, for example, in John 12, you know, where Jesus is talking to people

and he just says, oh Lord, you know, father glorify your name.

You know, and actually God speaks back to him and says, I have glorified it and I'll do it again.

The point I'm making is prayer, it doesn't fit into any one particular pattern.

Although religions all have prayer and they all adopt forms of prayer,

and habits of prayer, and sometimes special times and places of prayer.

Well, that could be okay.

That's not a bad thing.

Like I said, Jesus would get up early in the morning and go out and pray,

so he wouldn't be distracted.

But he also just lived his life in communion and communication with his father in a very natural way.

Again, I don't just see that as a discipline.

I see it as a relational thing.

And so, you know, if it's a discipline, then the more you do it, the more you feel proud of yourself for doing it.

But I'm not taking a prayer in here.

The Pharisees were, right, the Pharisees were choosing the sermon amount,

warned the Pharisees about praying out in public to get the acclaim of men,

and we need to be careful of that.

Right.

We need to be concerned only about whether we're connecting with God,

not whether we're not whether we're impressing people with our prayer life.

Great.

He, thank you.

You're the thorough answer.

I'll let you go down with somebody else.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

God bless.

Okay.

Andy and Carl's back, California.

Welcome to the narrow path.

Thanks for calling.

Hey, Steve.

Good afternoon.

Thanks for taking my call.

All is adventure.

I had a quick question about Bible translation because this morning,

I was reading in Proverbs 17.

I'm in the new living translation because that was kind of one of my casual,

I don't know.

I just bought it.

178 says, a bride is like a lucky charm.

Whoever gives one will prosper.

I thought that was a fascinating, I didn't know what you thought about.

How about that?

Yes.

It's not there.

It's not necessarily endorsing bribes.

It's saying that bribes, you know, really can get stuff done.

But he's making more of a comment about how politics works.

A lot of times what Solomon talks about to his son, Solomon's a king.

His son is a prince.

And he's talking about how the power in a king's word can do things.

Life and death is in the power of the tongue.

It's primarily in the context that the king can declare that someone will die or not.

And it's just kind of the dirty facts about politics, not necessarily recommending any course of action in some of these cases.

Although, of course, the Proverbs do recommend many things.

In different cases, you have to take each Proverbs separately because each of them is a standalone observation.

But it's more of an observation that, you know, people who bribed rulers, it's amazing.

It's like magic, how what they want gets done.

Now, he's not saying you should bribed rulers.

He's certainly not saying rulers should take bribes.

It could be more of a less ascinnical observation.

But it's an observation nonetheless.

You know, some of the Proverbs are simply observing what's wrong with the world.

And some are observing trends and patterns and tendencies and generalities and things like that.

Proverbs are wisdom literature, which means they point out, you know,

how certain behaviors leads to certain ends.

He also points out that a person is lazy will become poor, though he's not recommending laziness.

It's the opposite.

You know, if a person has loose lips, they'll destroy things with their immoderate speech.

He's pointing that out as a truth, not something that is to be done.

So, the business of bribes, yeah, people get what they want if they can bribe.

It's one of the things of great injustice in the world that the poor can't bribe.

The magistrates themselves sometimes they don't get justice.

It's an observation. It's not necessarily something that's been recommended in that case.

Listen, I need to take a break, but I appreciate your call.

You're listening to the narrow path. We have another half hour coming, so this is not the end.

We just want you to know that the narrow path is listener supported.

We got a lot of expenses we pay for the radio time.

We have no other expenses.

You can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com.

And donate there if you wish to.

There's also an address at the website where you can mail donations if you want,

but everything at the website is free.

So you don't have to donate. That's at thenarrowpath.com.

I'll be back in 30 seconds. Don't go away.

Small is the gate, and narrow is the path that leads to life.

Welcome to the narrow path with Steve Gregg.

Steve has nothing to sell you today, but everything to give you.

And the radio show is over. Go to thenarrowpath.com where you can study,

learn, and enjoy with free topical audio teachings, blog articles,

wrist by wrist teachings, and archives of all the narrow path radio shows.

We thank you for supporting the listener supported narrow path. This is Steve Gregg.

See you at thenarrowpath.com.

Welcome back to thenarrowpath radio broadcast.

My name is Steve Gregg, and we're live for another half hour taking your calls.

There's a couple of lines open right now if you want to call with questions

about the Bible of the Christian faith, or maybe to balance comment on something that you've heard the whole say

with which you disagree. Be glad to talk to you about that too.

54, 484, 57, 37.

That's 844, 484, 57, 37.

And our next caller is Ellie from Everett Washington. Hi Ellie. Welcome to thenarrowpath.

Yeah, hi Steve. Thanks for being there.

I have a question and I get my help, my friend in the car here, so bear with me.

But it's a background I'd like to know about the nasorite of that whole tooth that he took.

And the reason my background would be my friends that are going to a Torah class when being Jewish and they love it.

And they say that yes, there will be a reason for building the temple.

And it will be, and it will be, and they will offer sacrifices like Paul did when he took that nasorite vow to prove that he was a Jew.

And that they do still offer sacrificial offerings for things not for their sins, but for other things.

That I just confused by that.

Well, you know, the people who are Torah observant or Jewish roots people, I think they misunderstand Paul's actions.

And they don't have to because he actually explained his actions in such a way that disagrees with what they think.

Now it's true that Paul did when he went to Jerusalem accommodate the requests of James, who is the leader of the Jewish church there,

to go and pay the fees for a group of foreign nasorites who were going to the temple and they had to offer some sacrifices that are part of the vow.

And Paul agreed and he went and did that.

Now he got into trouble doing that, he got arrested and he out thrown in jail and he didn't get out jail for at least another four years.

Maybe he didn't do the right thing.

I will say this, Paul didn't always do the right thing.

And you did Peter.

I mean the Bible does record mistakes that they made.

And when Paul was on the way to Jerusalem, which ended up with him doing what you're describing,

there were prophets in certain places like Troyes that said to him,

don't go, the Holy Spirit says, don't go there.

Well Paul didn't believe it was the Holy Spirit speaking through them so he went anyway and he got in trouble, got put in prison for four years.

And maybe he was making mistakes.

Some people think he was, some think he was not.

But whether he was or not, he was following a procedure that he generally followed,

and which he explains in 1 Corinthians chapter 9.

In 1 Corinthians 9, beginning of verse 19, Paul said,

for though I'm free from all men, I've made myself a servant to all that I might win the more.

And 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,

as I became as one who's under the law, that I might win those who are under the law.

To those who are without law, as without law, that is, if I'm with Gentiles who don't have the law,

I live like someone who doesn't have the law, like them, not being without the law toward God,

but under the law toward Christ, that I might win those who are without the law.

Now what Paul says is, you know, I am at liberty because I'm not under the law,

I can observe it or not. If people are under the law, they don't have that liberty.

If you're under the law, you have to observe it, and you can't choose not to.

Paul says, well, I can choose to observe it or not because I'm not under it.

There's nothing wrong with me eating a kosher diet, though I don't have to do it.

But if I'm with Jews, I'm not going to rock the boat, I'm not going to offend them unnecessarily.

If I'm at a kosher home, I'm going to eat kosher food.

I'm going to do the Jewish things that the home practices.

Why? Because I have to? No, I don't have to.

I do it because I want to win these people, I don't want to offend them.

But he says, when I'm with Gentiles who don't keep the law, I'm free to not do it.

Now this would not be the case if he really believed that he had to keep the law.

If he believed he had to keep the law, he'd have to do even when he's with Gentiles.

That's what observant Jews do, by the way. Observant Jews don't just keep the law

when they're in their homes and in the synagogue, they keep the law when they're anywhere,

in a Gentile environment, anywhere.

So Paul is saying, I'm free.

I don't have to keep the law. There's no obligation to do so.

But I can voluntarily do so in order to reach people who would perhaps otherwise be offended.

By my not doing so.

And that's what he's saying he says.

Now a good example of that is when he goes to Jerusalem.

All the Christians there, according to James told Paul,

we have multitudes of brethren who are zealous for the law.

Okay, well Paul's thinking, okay, well, okay, this is a group that's easy to offend.

I'll accommodate them.

Not because he's being hypocritical, it's not hypocritical to do what you explain that you regularly do.

The first Corinthians is, I regularly live like a Jew when I'm with Jews.

And like a Gentile, when I'm with Gentiles.

Not to be deceptive, I'm telling you what I do.

I'm not lying to anybody. I'm telling you this is what I'm doing.

I'm just being sensitive, culturally sensitive.

And I believe that that's no doubt how we're going to understand his compliance with James's instructions when he came to Jerusalem.

Paul made it very clear in first Corinthians that I'm not under the law.

I'm not required to do this.

If I do this, I'm doing it only to be, you know, considerate

of these people's sensitivities.

And if somebody says, well, since Paul did it, we're all supposed to do it.

No, that's the last message he was trying to give.

He made it very clear at the Jerusalem Council and everywhere else he taught and in his epistles.

I should say Gentile believers are not required to keep the law of Moses.

Even Jews are not required to.

But many Jews want to because they were raised that way. That's their culture.

It's like some people, if they're raised Catholic and they later get saved,

they may go into an evangelical church, but they may go back to the Catholic church.

I've seen it many times because they're more accustomed to the reverential atmosphere and the liturgy and things like that.

They just feel comfortable there. They don't think it has to be done.

That's where they feel comfortable.

Now, I was raised in evangelicals. I go into one of those church churches. I don't feel comfortable.

Jews who were raised observing Sabbath and kosher diet,

many times they felt much more comfortable doing that, even after they got saved.

And Paul says, well, they've got liberty. They can do that.

But that doesn't mean that Christians, that Paul somehow thought that Christians are required to keep the law.

He did not believe that. And he made it abundantly clear in his epistles.

So interesting that they are Messianic Jews.

And they're doing this Bible study. This one is not a Jew, but they're Messianic Jews.

Let me say something. Let me say something.

Most people who are called Messianic Jews are not Jewish.

They have Messianic synagogues, but about 80% of the people who identify themselves as Messianic Jews are Gentiles.

If you go to a Messianic synagogue, something like 15 or 20% at the most are actually Jewish people.

The rest are wannabe. They're Gentiles who wannabe Jews.

Now, let me say this. If they were Jewish, there's nothing wrong with them keeping these rules as Christians.

But here's the thing. Real Jews don't believe that Gentiles are required to keep the law.

Real Jews believe that the law is given to Israel alone.

And they believe that Gentiles who want to please God have a different set of code called the Noah side laws.

Some say there's 6 or 8 or 12, there's a different list of the Noah side laws.

They are not the same laws as you find in the Torah, which the Jews have to observe.

But they are rules for Gentiles to not do abominable, pagan things.

And observant, I should say Orthodox Jews, they do not believe that Gentiles who are devout need to keep the law.

So it's ironic if there's Messianic Jews who say that Gentiles have to keep the law.

They're not even making, they're making more requirements than the unsaved Jews do on them.

Paul is very strong in the fact that we don't have to do that.

But he did argue that we should avoid offending our brother.

And he had whole sections on that enrollment chapters 14 and 15 and 1 Corinthians 8 through 10,

you know, about the necessity of avoiding unnecessary stumbling someone else.

So that was Paul's policy.

He explained his policy.

He lived his policy and people for some reason, you know, it's in black and white very clearly.

Certainly the Jerusalem Council.

They should note that because at the Jerusalem Council, the Judaizers who did think the Christian Gentiles should observe a law,

they met together with the apostles and there's who knows how long it went on, but they finally concluded that they don't need to keep the law.

They don't need to be circumcised.

They don't need to eat a kosher that they don't need to observe seventh.

We request that you don't eat blood and don't eat meat, sacrifice the idols and don't eat things strangled and don't fornicate.

Why?

Because these Gentiles were living in areas where Jews found that kind of behavior abhorrent and it would close down the witness of the church to those Jews.

Now of course, fornication is important, but the other things that were mentioned are don't eat blood, don't eat things strangled.

So now there was nothing in the law about eating things strangled.

There was nothing even in the law about eating meat, sacrifice the idols.

These were simply practices, not from the Torah, the blood parties from the Torah, but the others are not.

These were practices that were just the way that Gentiles often behaved that offended Jews.

And so the Jerusalem Council said, listen, we don't want to put down to the law, but just please avoid these things.

And they said, and if you do these things, everything will be fine.

In other words, if they're putting the Gentiles into the law, they should say, first of all, the four things they should all be part of the law.

And they should also include circumcision and Sabbath observance and Passover observance and, you know, synagogue attendance.

But they didn't include any of that.

They just gave these four things and said, if you do this, you'll be well.

You'll be fine.

So it's clear that they did not put the Gentiles under the law.

They avoided doing so.

It just seems like it goes against Christ to offer any sort of animal sacrifices.

Well, it certainly would be now because God has shown the obsolescence of it by destroying the temple.

And there's never been a temple since.

The Jews have not been able to offer animal sacrifices, even though they don't come to Christ.

And so, not a tournament.

Christians have the Atonement of Christ and don't need animal sacrifices.

But when the temple was still standing, Jewish Christians, you know, to do the temple rituals, they've done it all their life.

And they no doubt begin to continue to do it only thinking of Christ in it.

You know, Paul said, Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.

Well, Jewish Christians probably still kept the Passover in a kind of a traditional way, but recognized Christ as the Passover.

But once the temple was destroyed, all those things went off the window.

Interesting.

Well, it was the revival for my argument that said, why would we build?

Why would the Jews build another temple and offer sacrifice?

So, I guess there was that.

There's only one reason.

There's only one reason the Jews would build another temple.

And that's to put their thumb to their nose and thumb off Jesus.

Because Christianity teaches that Jesus died for our sins and died once and for all to cover all sins for all time.

Which, if the Jews begin to offer animal sacrifices, then yeah, we don't think so about Jesus.

We're going to go back to the old way.

We're replacing Jesus with these bulls and goats, which the New Testament says it was impossible for the bulls and goats blood to take away sins.

But in other words, to begin to offer sacrifices again would be specifically to register their rejection of Christ.

It'd be actually a very anti-Christian thing to do.

Now, the Jews are not Christians, most of them.

And therefore, to do something anti-Christian would be very characteristic.

They're pretty anti-Christian as it is.

But I mean, for us to say, well, how would we think about the Jews building a temple? Well, what are we building it for?

They're building it to offer animal sacrifices.

The temple doesn't have any use, any other use than that, just for offering animal sacrifices.

Well, why would you do that?

Well, because you don't believe Jesus put an end to that.

You don't believe Jesus has the ultimate sacrifice.

So, building a temple is basically an insult to Christ and it's intended as such.

So, I don't know why Christians would ever be encouraged to support that.

Actually, in my opinion, a Christian might as well send their money to build a Hindu or a Muslim structure as a Jewish one,

because all those religions reject Christ. Why should we support them financially in their anti-Christian practices?

That's very good. Good job. Good job.

All right. Thank you. Very much.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

God bless you. Bye-bye.

Thank you. Bye now.

Sally and Nashville Tennessee is next. Hi, Sally. Welcome.

Hi. How you doing?

Good.

Quick question. I wondered if you heard Head Cruises comment that saying Christ is king is anti-Semitic.

And I just wondered if you had any thoughts about that.

I believe Head Cruises comment was taken out of context.

If you saw the clip, which begins with him saying, Jesus is king means you hate the Jews.

Well, that certainly is not true. Christians say that Jesus is king.

In fact, I dare say that Ted Cruz himself identifies himself as a Christian, would say Jesus is king of the Jews.

He's a king.

If you get the longer clip, whoever clipped it was trying to make Ted Cruz sound worse than he is.

And I'm not saying I'm a big fan of Ted Cruz or not. I don't mind him. He's okay.

He's a dispensationalist. I'm not, but I'm not here to defend him.

But I'm here to say that watch out for clips on the internet because they will take someone out of context and make it sound like they're saying something they're not saying.

In the longer clip, and you can find it online, he's talking about some anti-Semitic movement.

He's not talking about Christians in general. He's talking about some anti-Semitic movement.

It sounds like some cult I wasn't familiar with.

That they say Jesus is king in order to say that the Jews are evil.

And now, of course, Jesus is king.

And I can say that and I don't hate the Jews. I don't even dislike them.

I don't have anything against Jews at all. But Jesus is king.

But when I heard the whole clip, I realized that okay, he's talking about a specific group of people.

A group I'm not even familiar with.

And their particular doctrinal stance was very hateful to the Jews.

And they happened to say Jesus is king as something that sounds orthodox.

But Ted Cruz apparently is saying when they say Jesus is king, they mean they hate the Jews.

He's not saying everyone who says that phrase hates the Jews.

And yet the way it's clipped, someone very dishonestly has clipped it and passed it along as if he is saying that about everyone who says Jesus is king.

So go looking for the whole thing and you'll see that it's out of context.

If Ted Cruz had actually just said without context, if you say Jesus is king, you're saying you hate the Jews.

Well, he's wrong.

You know, saying Jesus is king does not mean you hate the Jews.

Paul said Jesus is king, Peter said he's king. That's what the word Christ means, the anointed king.

You know, when Paul preached in Thessalonica, it says in Acts 17, he preached that Jesus is the Christ.

And the people when they repeated, he said he's saying there's another king, one Jesus.

That's true. The word Christ refers to the king, the Davidic king, from David's line.

The anointed one.

And so Paul was declaring Jesus to be king.

But Paul certainly didn't hate the Jews. They hated him.

But he didn't hate them. He would have given his salvation for them.

He said in Romans 9, he said, I could wish myself a curse from Christ if it would save my brothers the Jews.

So there's something, no connection in general between saying Jesus is king and saying, you know, you don't like Jews.

But there was some group that specifically was anti-Semitic.

And I didn't recognize who they were. I never heard of them.

But they are associating that declaration with hatred of the Jews.

So, yeah, watch out for edited clips.

Not everyone who posts clips is an honest person.

You have to wonder, I wonder why not? Why not just be honest? Why not just put the whole clip?

Are they trying to give a false impression for some reason? Whatever for?

You got to wonder. All right. We'll talk to David in Tampa, Florida. David, welcome.

Hello, Mr. Greg. Hi.

I just have a quick question, not really question, but what does it mean when it says that God repented,

making a human kind that he would wear in his heart?

I can listen to the answer after I hang up.

I'm not sure what verse you're referring to.

I didn't quite recognize the verse from what you said. Could you tell me what verse you're talking about?

I don't have the verse in front of me. I just, I know it's from Genesis.

I may have not heard you fully. What was it that you're, what is the content of the statement that you're talking about?

Okay. When, when, when, when human kind was, was sitting and he was going to destroy humanity,

and it said that God repented, God repented.

Okay. So what does it mean? It's a God repented. Okay. And grieved in my heart.

Okay. I didn't quite hear that way before. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah. Be glad to talk about that.

Okay. I'm going to hang up and listen to the, to the rate. Okay.

All right. All right. Thanks for your call.

Yeah. In Genesis 6, humanity, you know, took a moral plunge to a very deep place of corruption,

which God summarized the saying, the thoughts and intents of every man's heart was only evil continually.

Now that might be somewhat hyperbole, but it's very clearly describing the situation of general wickedness and evil thoughts and evil works and so forth.

And it was a very widespread thing. And it led God to say, I'm going to, I'm going to sort of clean up and start over.

I'm going to have to destroy all these wicked people and start fresh with some better people.

And then, and then came the flood. Now when it says that God saw the people's condition, their moral conditions,

where he says it repented him, that he had made man and grieved him at his heart.

Now, many times the Bible does say God repents.

And yet there's some other places that says God is not a man that he should repent.

And this is some, this is view, some people have seen this as a, as a, you know, a contradiction, obviously.

Several times the Bible does say that God does repent.

And, and then other times says God's not a man that he should repent.

When it says he's not a man that he should repent, it's usually when a prophet is speaking to somebody who's under judgment from God.

And, and is saying God is not a man that he should repent in others that he would change his mind.

For example, Samuel said this to Saul when King Saul had disobeyed God and, and Samuel said, well, God's taken the kingdom from you and given it to somebody else who would be more beating as a heart after you after God.

And, and he says, and God's not a man that he should repent.

In other words, you may try to change my mind, but even if you could change my mind, you can't change God's mind.

You know, he's not like me. He's not a man.

This is going to happen. You're not going to change, you're not going to get a turnaround from him.

That's what God is not a man that he should repent.

But, in other places, it is, it does say he repented.

Now, for example, when Jonah preached an Innova and the Invites turned from their wicked way and repented, it says God saw that they were going to, and he repented of the evil he said he would do.

In Jeremiah 18, there's a state of teaching there in verses 7 through 10 that if God says he's going to destroy somebody and they turn from the regulars, he says, I will repent of the evil, but I thought I would do.

And in Genesis 6, story verse 6, he says, God repented that he made man and it grieved him in his heart.

Now, there's a couple of ways to look at this. God does turn around.

The word, the word shoe, one of the Hebrew words for repentance is shoe, or shoe.

And it means to change direction. It means to turn back, to return, go the other way.

And so, sometimes God does turn around and go the other way.

There's another Hebrew word for repentance in the Bible, Naham, which means to be sorry.

To be sorry, it's repent. The repent has both of these meanings in different cases.

And I'm not looking at the Hebrew Bible, wouldn't do me much good, I don't read Hebrew, but in that verse it even means that God turned around or that he was sorry.

I suspect it means he was sorry because it follows that by saying it grieved him in his heart.

So, when God saw how bad people were, he was sorry that this was so. It brought him grief to his heart.

And so, I'm thinking it's just saying God was grieved. The man's behavior made God sorry.

It's interesting. It doesn't say he made him angry.

You know, the Bible does talk about God's wrath and his anger sometimes.

It's interesting. You think it's like God was angry. These people's evil thoughts were only evil continually.

And God was angry. So, he's bringing the flood. But really, we see a heart of compassion there and wishing that it could be otherwise.

You know, he's sorry. When I speak my children, if they go the wrong way, may at some level make me angry, but I care about them.

And I'm sorry to see them going the wrong way. And that's how God is. He's got a soft heart toward people.

And I think it's just saying that he felt grief and he felt compelled by the situation to take the course that he next would take.

Which was going to be very hard on humanity, obviously, because he's going to wipe out everybody except those eight people in the flood.

Now, does God really, does God change his mind?

Repent in the New Testament, Metanoias, the Greek word in the New Testament, means to change the mind.

It's a different idea somewhat than the Hebrew words, the Old Testament.

But does God change his mind? Well, if he does, does that mean he gets new information?

Because if I change my mind, it's because I thought something and then I got new information, I had to change my mind.

But God doesn't get new information. So he wouldn't think something once and then get new information, changes mind about that.

But I do believe that God is spoken of in anthropomorphic terms throughout the Old Testament.

He is spoken of in terms that we are familiar with of human behavior. God is not human.

And he isn't reacting exactly like we do, but we understand when a person changes their mind, they do something different.

And here, God, responding to prayer or responding to rebellion or something, often changes his position, changes his action.

And it looks like there's been a change of mind on his part. In fact, if we saw a person do that, it would be because they changed their mind.

And comparing God to humans and speaking anthropomorphically of him in the way that we speak of a person is a common literary thing in the Bible,

although the Bible makes it clear that we're not to be too literal in this anthropomorphism.

I'm sorry about a time, even listening to the Narrow Path, our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for listening. God bless.