The Narrow Path 07/07/2026

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour each weekday afternoon so that we can take your calls. If you have questions you'd like to call in about regarding the Bible or the Christian faith, maybe you'd like to call in because there's something that this host has represented as true which you think is not quite right and you'd like to offer a balanced comment or correct. That's fine, you're always welcome to do that on this show. The number to call is 844-484-5737. It looks like the lines all just lit up, which means we don't have any open lines at this second, but do not fear, there will be lines opening up continually through the program. So just try randomly in the next hour, earlier the better, of course, if you call too late we probably can't give you much time on the air. So the number is 844-484-5737. All right, and I don't see any reason not to go directly to the phones now and talk to Rick who's calling from the state of Maine. Hi Rick, welcome.
Rick: Hi Steve, thank you for taking my call. I've been tracing a theme through scripture and wanted to get your thoughts. It's about knowing God and if I could, I'd like to just very quickly read a few verses. In Hosea chapter four, God says Israel has no faithfulness, no chesed, no covenant loyalty. He says that they have no knowledge of God, which is obvious by their lives of murder and adultery and theft and covenant breaking. Then in Hosea six, he calls them to return to him and press on to know him, but immediately says that their covenant loyalty is only temporary. He declares that this is where he famously says, "I desire chesed rather than sacrifice and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." So there's parallelism there where it seems that knowing God and covenant loyalty are meant to clarify each other. Then as I look in the New Testament, I see in 1 John chapter two, he says, "By this we know that we have come to know him if we keep his commandments, and anyone who claims to know him while not obeying him is lying." Finally, Matthew chapter seven, Jesus says to those who practice lawlessness and don't do the will of God, he says, "I never knew you" to them, even though they claimed to serve him. So my question is, would it be fair to say that throughout both the Old and the New Testaments, knowing God refers to an intimate covenant relationship rather than merely knowing facts about him and that obedience to God's will is the primary biblical evidence that we can look at to discern whether or not we truly know him or are known by him?
Steve Gregg: Yeah, definitely. It seems to me that Adam and Eve knew God both before and after they ate of the tree. In some sense, they knew him. In some ways, they knew more about him after they sinned because they learned that he keeps his threats. They knew him before then too, but I don't think they knew him well. They just knew he existed and knew what he had told them to do, but obedience to him wasn't a part of their practice apparently. So knowing about God was true of them before they sinned and after, but they were not lost until they sinned. It's obedience to God that shows that you know him in the way that saves. Of course, you didn't, I thought you might also mention John 17:3, where Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that they might know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you've sent." Eternal life is knowing God and as you pointed out from the other verses you quoted, knowing God is always seen in obedience to God. Now, it doesn't mean that people who know God will never stumble. It doesn't mean that they're always obedient every moment. It means that is their trajectory, that's what they've chosen for life, is to be obedient to God, as opposed to the majority of mankind who have never made that choice. Most people have never given it much thought and if they have given it thought, many of them have rejected that notion that that's an option. I could obey God in my life instead of going for my own dreams, my own agendas. Yeah, but I don't think I'll do that. I think I'll just go for my own dreams and my own agendas. I think I'll do what I want. So that's the majority of people on the planet, including many religious people, because the Jews or Israel that Hosea was writing to were a religious people. That's why he said I desire chesed more than sacrifice. They apparently were offering sacrifices, which means they were religious, but God says yeah, but that's you're not doing what I want. I want you to know me. So being religious and doing religious things is no guarantee that a person knows God. Knowing God means you are in the proper relation with him. Of course, there's nobody in a proper relation with God unless they know he's God, that he's the king, that he's the lord, that he's the one you're supposed to obey, he's the one that there are severe consequences for not obeying. If a person doesn't know those things, they don't know who God even is. Now, a person might know those things and still be so rebellious that they'll just say well, I'll take my lumps and I'll do my own thing and forget about God. Well, that's a very stupid thing to do, but there might be people who would do that. But people who really know God in the sense that they embrace the truth about him instead of turning their back on that truth are the ones that know him in the way that saves a person. Right, knowing God is a key thing. You know, I have a lecture series at the website at thenarrowpath.com called "Knowing God." The whole name of the series is "Knowing God Other Than By Hearsay," because lots of religious people could say they know God, but mostly it's by hearsay. It's not that is they've heard about God and they kind of accept the things they've heard, but as far as walking with God, loving God, obeying God, those that doesn't really characterize all the lives of people who say they know God. In fact, it's interesting that the last verse in Titus chapter one talks about people that are clearly not saved. I mean, that's clearly what he's saying about them. He says in Titus 1:16, "They profess to know God, but in their works they deny him, being abominable, disobedient and disqualified for every good work." So these people claim to know God, but their works prove that they don't. And that's like you were quoting 1 John 2:4, you know, if anyone says I know him and doesn't keep his commandments, they're lying. They don't know him. So I mean, it's not like the Bible's ambiguous about this, you know. If you read what Paul said, what John said, what Jesus said, you get the same message and even the Old Testament prophets said it. So I mean, I realize there's probably a lot of people out there who are religious and even Christian in a Christian kind of a way religious, but and would say they know the Lord, but everything the Bible says on that subject would tell that they don't. And as you also pointed out, Matthew seven, where Jesus said, "Many will say to me, Lord, we did these things in your name, and I'll say I never knew you." Now, he didn't know them because they didn't know him. He says in that passage, "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my Father in heaven." So you know, there's really two groups of people in the world: those who have decided that they will live their lives obediently to God, which means they'll be in the proper relationship with their creator, and those who have never made such a choice and or in some sometimes they've chosen specifically not to do so. But I think an awful lot of people are by default in the middle and they haven't necessarily said I'll never obey God, I'm going to be a rebel against God, but they've never made any decision to be submitted to him in all things and to live their life according to his plan instead of theirs. So I believe those are the ones that say Lord, Lord, and he's going to say I never knew you.
Rick: Yeah. So would you say knowing God perhaps could almost synonymously be equivalent with being in covenant relations? Like is that kind of like maybe almost interchangeable? Because knowing God just strikes us as like you would think just knowing some intellectual facts. But to try to like just come up with a definition, a working definition in my mind, would you say like maybe covenantal knowledge? Because I know so many people, they just think like say a prayer or something like this and now you're right. But if we could wrap our minds around like God wants to enter into covenant with you and he's offering you his devotion and his loyal love and at the same time he's saying I desire that from you and that's when you know me.
Steve Gregg: Sure, let me just say this, that intimate relationship, for example, between Adam and Eve and sometimes between other married couples in the Bible is described as knowing. Like when Adam and Eve have sex and get pregnant, it says Adam knew his wife. Now, God made Adam and Eve's relationship to be a picture of our relationship with him. The Bible makes that very clear. Paul quotes the passage from Genesis two over in Ephesians five and says that a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and they become one flesh. He says, "This is a mystery, but it speaks of Christ and the church." So it's obvious that God created the marriage relationship in the Garden of Eden to be a teaching device, a visual aid to understanding what being what knowing him is supposed to be like. It's a covenant relationship. Adam and Eve were married. Marriage is a covenant relationship. And in that covenant, they knew each other or he knew her and it was a fruitful relationship. Now, you're saying would it be best to say that knowing God is the same as being in covenant with him? I would say that the same people who know him in that sense are the ones who are in covenant with him. I don't know if the word know is synonymous with being in covenant. Just like I don't think the word love is synonymous, but Jesus said, "If you love me, you'll keep my commandments." Yeah, well, those who know him keep his commandments too. Now, knowing and loving, we could say, well, to know him is to love him, you know. And I could see that. I mean, I can't imagine anyone not loving God if they really know him. So but love and knowing are two different things, but they obviously are so joined at the hip. It's hard to imagine anybody wouldn't love God if they knew him. And anyone who doesn't love him either probably is misperceiving what he is like or else they're just so hardhearted they can't love much of anyone except themselves. But certainly covenant obedience, love, knowing God, these are all the experiences of somebody who's in a proper relationship with God. And that's what the Bible calls everyone to, including the Old Testament as we saw in Hosea. Well, Rick, I need to take another caller, but I appreciate your insights. Thanks for sharing. Rob in Indianapolis, Indiana. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
Rob: Hey Steve, I'm calling with a question from the easiest book to understand in the Old Testament, Zechariah.
Steve Gregg: Oh yeah. Piece of cake.
Rob: Yeah. So my question is from Zechariah 11. You're familiar that in that chapter, God talks about the two staves, Favor and Union.
Steve Gregg: Yeah.
Rob: So it seems like from your understanding and from mine as well from what you've taught me, that that's in relation to Israel and or Judah. In verse seven and then in verse eight, he talks about destroying the three shepherds, which may be the priest, elders and scribe. So everything up to this point seems Israel, Judah related. But then all of a sudden in verse ten, God says, "I took my staff Favor and broke it, annulling the covenant that I had made with all the peoples." My understanding typically is all the peoples are Gentile nations or the whole world. And so kind of a two-part question is: am I understanding all the peoples correctly that that is all the nations, the Gentiles? And if so, when did he ever make a covenant with all the peoples? How does he go from Israel, Judah all of a sudden to a covenant with all the peoples?
Steve Gregg: Yeah, I was just thinking about that verse last week and that very phrase as you know, if you've heard my lectures on Zechariah, I raised a question about that myself. I think it's I think one thing is often is fairly obvious. I mean, if we just leave that phrase out for a moment, for the sake of following the train of argument, then we'll come back to what that phrase would mean in it. He's got two staffs, one he is really called Grace or Favor, and one is called Union or Bonds. And the Grace one represents God's covenant with Israel. That is his favorable covenant. He shows grace and favor to them, of course, that was always going to be as according to Exodus on the basis of their loyalty to him, keeping his covenant, obeying his commandments. And if they did these things, his favor would be upon them. So the rod that says Grace or Favor on it represents the relationship of favor between God and Israel. Now, the other rod has the word Bonds or Union on it, which as we can see when it's broken, it refers to the unity between the tribes of Israel, between the people of Israel and each other. Their unified nature of the nation as opposed to being totally at each other's throats. Now, in the course of the prophecy, the first rod is broken and he says that's that he is breaking his covenant that he made with all the peoples. We're going to come back to the word all the peoples a moment. And then he took the other rod, which was bands or bonds or union, and he says he broke that too in verse 14. "Then I cut in two my other staff Bonds, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel." Okay, so what I believe is going on there is that when they crucified Christ, God broke or they broke and therefore he broke the relationship off with them. And then of course, the division and the brotherhood and the unity and the cohesiveness of the nation of Israel and Judah, I think that was dissolved during the during the Jewish war, especially during the siege of Jerusalem where, you know, we know that as they were threatened from Romans besieging them on the outside, the Jews themselves inside were killing each other off. They were like divided into three warring bands, all of them Jews inside and all of them threatened by the Romans outside, and they're making civil wars among themselves and killing each other off. Just crazy. Now, I believe that's the breaking of the union. So I think we've got the you know, God breaking his covenant with them and then the the covenant that holds them together too. I think that's what it's talked about. Now, why would he say with all the peoples? Now, you say aren't all the peoples the nations? Well, it sounds like when he says all the peoples. On the other hand, usually in the Old Testament, the words peoples refer, I'm not going to say every time, but it's more commonly referring to the Jewish and Israeli people. And the others outside of Israel usually called the nations. The word the people in a you know, without the s on the end, generally speaking, if he just said with the people, then we'd know he means the Israeli people, the Jewish people. If he said the nations, that would make it very clear he means other nations. Now, the context here speaks of the the people betraying Christ, rejecting him, God punishing them for that, and this all happened of course in the first century. Now, God didn't really have a covenant with all the nations at that time. I mean, some might say, well, you know, God made a covenant with Noah, maybe it's the Noahic covenant. All people, God promised he wouldn't send a flood again, but that hardly seems to fit what's being described here. I'm suspicious and I don't know. I mean, as you said, Zechariah and you said it sarcastically is the easiest book to understand. It's actually probably the hardest book to understand in the Old Testament. And so there are some things that are a little hard to affirm even if they're hunches. I'm thinking that the peoples would mean the people of Judah and the people of Israel. And that is to say the peoples does not look beyond the the Abrahamic peoples, the Jewish Israel peoples. They were after all separate tribes at one time and and many times the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom were separate from each other though they were all belonging to the people of Israel. To call them the peoples would make some sense, especially in view of the fact that the next rod he breaks or cuts breaks the bond between Israel and Judah. So I mean Israel and Judah are the ones who are being dealt with here. Eventually they are set against each other, but first he breaks his covenant with the peoples, plural, which I'm you know, I realize that in any other context or maybe in no context at all, we would think all the peoples would probably have a larger multi-ethnic referent. But since this is talking about what's going on in Israel between the the Jew and the Israelite peoples, I'm thinking, although it's a very strange way to speak about it, very unusual, that he is talking about the Jewish people and the you know the fact that he had a he did have a covenant with all of them, with all the tribes of Israel, although they had divided into two nations and so forth subsequently. But I think he's talking about the Sinaitic covenant there. Now, if not, I have no idea what it would be he's talking about.
Rob: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I haven't looked it up in the Hebrew concordance, but is there any chance that in other instances where peoples is translated tribes? I mean, could this be that I made with all the tribes in any way?
Steve Gregg: I'm not aware of it. I'd have to look that up, but I don't you know, I would kind of doubt it, though I would like it if it turned out to be that way. I mean, it would make it easier for me to affirm what I'm affirming. But I cannot confirm it. Well, thank you Rob. I appreciate you calling. Carrie from Fort Worth, Texas. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Kerry: Hi Steve. Just got a question about can the promised land be seen as a type of Christ? And if so, where would the Bible confirm that?
Steve Gregg: Well, the land isn't specifically said to be a type of Christ, although almost everything else in the Old Testament is a type of Christ. I mean, not everything, but so many things are. And not all of them are said to be. I mean, I think there was a general trend in New Testament times for the biblical writers to see just about everything significant in the Old Testament as a picture of Christ, whether it was the Passover or the Sabbath or the, you know, the sacrifices or, you know, you name it, the furniture of the tabernacle. So I would say the land itself could easily be seen that way too, although it's not stated this way. We realize that the land is what was usually called the inheritance. God's people's inheritance was the land. And we certainly would understand in the New Testament that our inheritance is Christ. Now, I don't recall that he's called our inheritance. We're called his inheritance in Ephesians chapter one and perhaps some other places. But, you know, it is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob included the land. And Paul said that, you know, those promises are fulfilled in Christ. So and so did other New Testament writers indicate that. So I would say without scriptural authority, I wouldn't use the exact expression that the land is a type of Christ. But I would say the land plays a role among the Old Testament saints that is analogous to the role Christ plays with us. That might be the same thing as saying it's a type. It's just that the Bible doesn't use the word type of that particular connection, but it could. I mean, many people have pointed out that Joseph in Egypt, betrayed by his brothers and saving them nonetheless, is a type of Christ and some some teachers have pointed there's like 30 some odd parallels between Joseph and Jesus, some pretty probably more than any other Old Testament type of Christ, there are so many connections to that looks like Joseph's a type of Christ and yet he's one of the few people that isn't said to be a type of Christ. Isaac is, David is, Moses is, you know, some of the quite a few of the Old Testament characters Isaiah apparently is and yet we're never told in the New Testament that Joseph is. And yet so much evidence points that direction that we might just think well, maybe the lack of any identification of Joseph as a type is simply an omission and maybe something that people would have taken for granted wouldn't you know the writers didn't think it needed to be pointed out, it's obvious. And it's not impossible that they saw the land that way too, because they don't come out and say the land is a type of Christ, but it's very clear that what Israel looked for is is actually found in Christ. You know, there's a specific statement to that effect in Romans chapter 11 where he says in Romans 11:7, "What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks." Now what does Israel seek? Well through most of its history Israel has been seeking a reunion of all the of all the tribes in the land of promise. That's kind of been one of the main things on the agenda of the Jewish people. But it says, "But the elect have obtained it and the rest were hardened." Okay, so the nation of Israel as a whole has not obtained what they were looking for. This could be a reference to the land. I don't know. But whatever it is that Israel has not obtained, the elect ones, the remnant, have obtained not will but have. So what have believing Jews got that unbelieving Jews don't have? Well, Jesus certainly. We know that in Hebrews chapter 11 it says that Abraham was looking for not a earthly country, but for a heavenly one whose builder and maker is God. Now, that heavenly country is I believe the new Jerusalem. It says he's prepared for them a city. That city is a picture of Christ and the church. Especially I mean the church is his body, he's the head of it. So I mean there are ways that the land or the what Abraham and his people were looking for can be connected, identified with who Christ is. But specific reference to the land being a type of Christ I have not found. All right, we're going to take a little break, not very long, and we've got another half hour coming. We've got quite a few people waiting online. There's one line open. The number is 844-484-5737. If you'd like to be on in our second half hour. That half hour will begin in about 45 seconds, so I'm going to take a 30 second break and we'll be back for another half hour to take your calls. Stay tuned. Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour. Our lines are full at the moment so I won't give out the number just yet. If we need to we'll give it out a little later in the program. We're going to go to the phones now and speak next with James from New York City, New York. Hi James, welcome.
James: Yeah, hi Steve. This week I'm going to meet my family and two of my sisters are devout Christians, Catholic, and the subject always comes up why are they am are they wrong? Like when I tell them there's an the Catholic is going off base. I don't know how to explain that and they'll say, "Well, why are you right?" How do I tell them where I am right as far as following the Bible and following Christ? Then they'll ask me do you belong to a church? And I haven't joined a church because there's so many different Christian churches. I don't know which one to belong to. I heard this one doesn't follow Christ the whole way, this one doesn't. So I'm just keep with the Bible as of now. But how do I approach them when that they're on the wrong path as far as being a devout Catholic and they follow Catholicism? I even noticed real fast when I went to a takeout restaurant the young people of there, a lot of them wear crosses and the last one I spoke to, he tells me a year ago he became a Catholic. What do I tell him? Like the path is not right. I don't know if I'm making myself clear or not, but that is my question.
Steve Gregg: All right, yeah, I think you're it's pretty clear. I'll tell you where I'm at. I don't believe that any institutional church has the right to call itself the true church. I believe the true church has always been from the days that Jesus walked the earth till this day is comprised of every true disciple of Jesus. That is everybody who has been incorporated into his body, which is the church, through being born again and who is walking through the Holy Spirit because the Bible says as many as are led by the spirit are the children of God. So anyone who's been born again of the spirit who's being led by the spirit, who's following Jesus as their head, are members of his body. Now, some of those people go to Catholic churches. Some go to Eastern Orthodox churches. Some go to Protestant churches. Some go to Coptic churches. Now, that doesn't mean that everybody in any of those churches is a true follower of Christ. Being a true follower of Christ is an individual thing. It has to do with being spiritually connected by the miracle of rebirth. I believe there have been many Catholics throughout history who have had that status and I believe there's many Eastern Orthodox who've had that status. And there's many Protestants who have. And so anyone who has that status, that is they're born again and they're followers of Christ anywhere on the globe, they are part of the global body of Christ. It is not a human-led organization. The true church is led only by Christ. He is the head. Now, the Catholic church has a head they call the Pope, which is a shame because I don't think it's right to call any man the head of the church. There are spiritual leaders that the Bible raises up, but in the Bible these are people who are simply servant-minded people who serve the body of Christ by providing example for the younger brethren of how to live and who teach. And that's what leaders are always told to do. That's what leaders are, whereas of course throughout history these institutional churches, and you can name any one you want, the Catholic included, have often had corrupt leaders. That is human leaders that were corrupt, people who misled people, people who adopted ideas that Jesus never taught and the apostles never taught. That means that every organization that is made by man is vulnerable to leading people astray. I'm not saying every one of them does so. And even if an organization tends to lead people astray, that doesn't mean that every person who attends those churches is necessarily led astray. There's a danger of it. Now, how are Catholics wrong? Well, one way Catholics are wrong is that they say that they are the true church. There's certainly nothing about the Catholic church that resembles the original church. It's interesting how many traditions they have adopted over the years that have no parallels in the teaching of Jesus or the apostles. That is anywhere in the Bible. Now, what they would say is well, the church leaders of later generations after the Bible was written and the apostles were dead, later leaders, you know, they they adopted traditions and and that Jesus gave them the authority to adopt these traditions and so because he did we have to follow these traditions. I would say you're going to find more in the Catholic church that applies that is in the category of these traditions than that is in the category of what the Bible actually teaches. And this is true in other groups too. I'm not I'm not ragging on Catholics here. This is true of every institutional church you find. Although some I will say that some institutional churches make much more of a heroic effort to stick with what the Bible says and what Jesus said and the apostles said. Some make very little effort. One of the biggest problems I have with the Roman Catholic Church is that they don't believe that the Bible and the word of God in the Bible is the final authority on things. They believe the Bible and church traditions hold equal authority. Now, the early church and Jesus indicated that, you know, truth is found in God's word as nowhere else. I mean, there are some truths that aren't in the Bible but they're not the truths that are defining of what Christianity is. Jesus said in John 17:17, he's praying and he says to his Father, "Sanctify them," meaning the Christians, "by your truth. Your word is truth." John 17:17. So Jesus said that God's word is the truth and of course Christians have always believed that. I think even Catholics say they believe that, but there's nothing in the Bible that says church traditions are truth. In fact, you know, the Jews before Jesus came, they had a religion too which was given them by by God at Mount Sinai through Moses and was confirmed through their prophets. And of course Moses and the prophets' writings are what we call Old Testament scripture now. But Judaism, which was supposed to follow those scriptures, had adopted many traditions that weren't in those scriptures, some of them contrary to those scriptures. The rabbis taught many things that weren't what the Bible teaches and Jesus rebuked them for that. He said full well you reject the word of God to keep your tradition. Now, the Old Testament religion was revealed by the word of God to Moses and the prophets. But the rabbis added traditional things to it and they lost track of the difference between human traditions and God's word. I believe that's always a tendency, a temptation for people to do. And I think that I think the church many in the church fell to that temptation after the apostles were gone and had given us the scriptures. For in the next several centuries and and frankly up to this time, some Christians started adding traditions of man and they became mixed together so no one you know the church didn't know the difference. That is people who didn't want to know the difference apparently didn't know the difference between the word of God and the tradition of men. There were people, and I'm not even just talking about Martin Luther in the the reformers, but before Luther there were people, including John Huss and Wycliffe, who were like a hundred years before Luther. Tyndale, these guys were in the Catholic church and there was no reformation so they never were outside the Catholic church except when they were excommunicated. But they they began to say wait a minute, a lot of these traditions are not in the Bible. A lot of these traditions are actually contrary to the Bible. So we have to decide are we going to go with the word of God or with the traditions of the church? Now who is the church? If we're talking about the leaders of the church, that's what we call men. In the Catholic church, all the leaders are men. And even if they had women, it wouldn't improve the situation. They're still humans. Humans are fallible. God isn't, and therefore I believe, if you say what's wrong with the Catholic church, I'd say well, some things about it are are worse than others. I could say the same thing about most Protestant denominations too. And I'm sure people could say that about me and the and the people I fellowship with. There's things we're not perfect. But one of the things most objectionable about the Roman Catholic Church is that they don't think that the Bible is the final authority about such things. And therefore the traditions that come from men and that even contradict the Bible in many cases are adopted as if they are the word of God. Anyway, if your your family members want to know what I just said, you know, these radio programs are archived at our website and you can have them listen to to this if you want them to hear that. If that's something you want them to hear. But I'll say this, when when they say what church do you go to? Well, the answer to that doesn't really matter too much. The real question is are you part of the real church? The real church is made up of all people who are truly members of the body of Christ. And that's those who have the spirit of God, who follow the spirit of God and obey Christ as head. And you don't join that church. God joins you to that church. It's and its membership is not on some membership rolls in some earthly institution. No, its membership is defined by the Holy Spirit. It's a spiritual community. Some are going to be in the Catholic church and your your relatives who are Catholic might be in the true church too, but not because they're Catholic, but I mean they'd have to be followers of Christ. And there's lots of Catholics who are followers of Christ and there's some who are not, just like same of true of any other group of church. So if they're if they're comfortable and complacent because they are in the right church as they think, but if they don't follow Christ himself and know Christ himself, then I think I think they've got a false confidence. On the other hand, if they really love the Lord and they're doing all they can to follow him and they're just mistaken as I believe they would be into thinking that the Catholic church describes best what what Christ wants. Well, they I believe they could be saved. I think they could be saved. Although there is always some disadvantage even if you're saved to not knowing the truth, because Jesus said if you continue in my words, you're my disciples indeed and you'll know the truth and the truth will make you free. So not continuing in man's words or bishops or popes' words or priests' words, but continuing in Jesus' words. And you know, I have no problem with the Catholic church except where they depart from the words of Jesus and the apostles. And I would think that'd be a serious objection to any church that does that. But again, I don't broad brush any denomination, even ones I strongly disagree with on many points. I don't broad brush and say they can't be saved. I believe that many people are saved who have many wrong ideas. It's just that if you're saved, you might as well pursue the right ideas and the place to find those would be in scripture. All right, James? Thanks for calling. George in Detroit, Michigan. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
George: Hi Steve, how are you?
Steve Gregg: Good.
George: Good, good. Interesting dialogue that you're having there about church traditions and it kind of goes along with my question to you today about in John chapter I think it's 19:31. And John is writing about a high Sabbath day. And so, you know, when I think about the modern-day church, it it seems to me that a lot of that is kind of lost. For example, you look at Good Friday or you look at the modern-day Sabbath, which is Sunday now so they say. My question to you though is: what happened to the high Sabbath day? Because if you really want to understand truth, you know, you got to go back and look at I guess how the Jewish people.
Steve Gregg: Yeah, I'll answer that question. I can answer that question. When it says that was a high Sabbath, what it means is it wasn't simply the weekly Sabbath, it was also the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread. There were certain festivals in the Jewish calendar in addition to the weekly Sabbath. They had also a monthly day, the first day of each month was a new moon. And then they had three festivals that happened throughout the year. Two of them were a week long. One of them was a just one day. That was Pentecost was the one day. Passover and Pentecost were week-long festivals. Now, this was a Passover. Jesus was crucified at Passover. Under the law, the first day of the Passover week and the last day of the Passover week were were treated as if they were Sabbaths. That is just like on the weekly Sabbath, the Jews were not supposed to do any work or bear any burdens where they're supposed to rest. That's what the weekly Sabbath was for. Likewise, the first and last days of these festival weeks were to be treated the same as a Sabbath. Now, they might actually fall on a weekly Sabbath or on some other day because they they didn't always fall on the same day of the week. These were these were based on the the phases of the moon, not the weeks days of the week. And so different years, the first day of, for example, the Passover week would fall on a different day of the week. Now, let's just say the the Sabbath in a or should the Passover began in a certain year on Tuesday. Okay, well, then that Tuesday would be a Sabbath even though they'd already had their regular Sabbath on Fri Saturday. So a few days later they're going to have another Sabbath. And then there's a a Saturday that falls within that week and that's a Sabbath and then the following Tuesday which is the end of that week is a Sabbath. So they they got extra Sabbaths when they have these festival weeks. They always had the day the weekly Sabbath on Saturday. But these weeks, these festivals would fall different times of the week different years. Now, this is saying that Sabbath was a high Sabbath. Many people have said therefore it was not a Saturday Sabbath that John is talking about here but it's a just the first day of the Passover week of Unleavened Bread. Now, that could be true, though it sounds to me like it is saying it was a regular Sabbath too. In my opinion, the first day of Passover began on a Saturday that that year, that particular year. And therefore although it was a Saturday and a normal Sabbath, it was also a high Sabbath. That is it was a special Sabbath that went along with the holy week, different and not dictated by the day of the week but by the by the Passover. So now you say where did these go? Where they went was they went the way of the old covenant. The festival calendar of the Jews along with their sacrificial system, the priesthood, the laws of clean and unclean conditions whether it's unclean foods or unclean conditions like leprosy or or a woman on her period was unclean. Those are all part of the old covenant. That one away because the old covenant was has been replaced by a new covenant. And it says in Hebrews chapter eight and verse 13 where there's a new covenant, the old covenant is obsolete. So those things that were related to the old covenant came to an end when there came a new covenant. Now, Jesus had made the new covenant with his disciples the night before this, the night before he was crucified. But the Jews didn't pay any attention to that. The Jews were still keeping the festivals and so forth for another 40 years because they rejected Christ. I mean many of them did. Some followed Christ. But the Jews who rejected Christ paid no attention to any new covenant that he said he made. They just kept going with the old covenant until it was no longer possible. And it ceased to be possible in A.D. 70 when the Romans destroyed the temple and they could no longer do the stuff that that the old covenant required. So that's that's how I would see that, how I'd answer that. All right, let's see we're going to talk next to Alan from Grass Valley, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
Alan: Hi Steve. I think I must be misunderstanding scripture, I need some help. I want to compare two two sets of scriptures. In the Old Testament in Genesis, it talks about the sons of God finding women attractive, marrying them, going into them, having children. And I've heard that discussed and many people claim that's talking about angels. But in the New Testament, Jesus says angels don't marry. And that seems so obvious to refute that they're angels, so I must be misunderstanding something because I don't hear anyone bring that up.
Steve Gregg: Well, I don't know if it's you that's misunderstanding or the people who say that those are angels. There's different theories about who those sons of God were and certainly a popular one ever since the appearance of the book of Enoch, two centuries before Christ. The book of Enoch popularized the idea that the sons of God in Genesis six is a reference to angels. Now, you're right, Jesus said the angels do not marry, but actually said the angels in heaven do not marry. What's interesting is many people think, I don't, but many people think Jesus was quoting the book of Enoch in that statement too because there is a statement in Enoch that says angels don't marry. So it's kind of an interesting thing because Enoch also is the source of the idea that the sons of God that married women in Genesis six were angels, but also there's an affirmation in the book of Enoch that angels don't marry. Now, Jesus said the angels of God in heaven don't marry. If somebody says that the angels in or that the sons of God that married women in Genesis six were angels, one who believes that might say, "Well, Jesus said angels in heaven don't do that, but there are fallen angels who aren't angels of heaven and therefore they might and they according to Enoch they did." Now Enoch is not an inspired book. It's just a Jewish fiction which the early Christians and Jews of their time really quite liked it and and sometimes it was I mean it was popularly read. But we don't know that anybody thought it was scripture. There's lots of books that are popular and religious that aren't scripture, even today. But so I mean I don't think the angels do marry and I don't think necessarily the sons of God in Genesis six are best understood to be angels. I think they are human. And one reason is that we might say well, it's only the angels in heaven that don't marry, but the angels who fall might. Well first of all, the angels in heaven, if they were made not to marry, we must assume they were made not to be sexual, unless God wanted them doing stuff outside of marriage he didn't give them marriage just gave them sex. I I think that's assuming too much. I believe that if God didn't make the angels to marry or to reproduce, then I'm going to say I don't think he made them with sexual natures. And why would an angel who's asexual have any sexual attraction to women, human women? First of all, it'd be like one species being sexually attracted to another species. You know, it would take a very very perverted human being to be sexually attracted to something other than a human being, I would think. But but some would say well maybe the angels do. Yeah, but the thing is to be sexually attracted is a function of chemistry. It's a function of chemicals in your body, of hormones and so forth. Now those hormones are put into human beings and animals so that they will be attracted to their mates. But if God didn't make angels to marry, why would he put hormones or chemistry in them to make them attracted to potential mates of in this case of a different species, humans? I it just doesn't seem like a likely thing. It's also the case that even if angels had sexual fantasies of some kind, had some reason to have them, that they could reproduce with women, have children? I don't care how close apes are to humans genetically, they're not close enough for there to be mutual reproduction between them. Sometimes people say there's like 97 percent similarity between apes and humans genetically. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what everyone says. Yeah, well, that's apparently not close enough for reproduction. You have to have apparently 100 percent human DNA to reproduce with another human being. Now, where would the angels get that DNA? We're not talking just here about a human form that they might take on. They've got to be human down to the cellular level, down to the core of the nucleus of their cells, they've got to have human DNA. Where would they get that? And DNA is a code which is passed down from ancestors going all the way back to Adam and Eve. So you know, how are they going to get this code that has that goes back to Adam and Eve so they can reproduce with humans? I just don't find that to be a likely thing. Some people do, some people say no big problem for them. For me, it's very problematic. So I I think you're right. I think your instincts are right that the angels don't marry and therefore the sons of God in Genesis six are not angels. All right, thank you for your call. Paul from Sacramento, California. We don't have much time but welcome.
Paul: Hi Steve. Thanks for taking my call. The audio okay?
Steve Gregg: Yes, please hurry though, I'm looking at a clock with only a couple minutes on it.
Paul: All right, great. My question relates to Matthew 27:46 and the corresponding scripture in Luke. And my question really is about my version of the Bible which my dad gave me 30 years ago. It's a Lamsa from Eastern ancient Eastern manuscripts.
Steve Gregg: From Aramaic. Yeah, from Aramaic, yeah.
Paul: Yeah, exactly. And and the confusion I've had is other versions I think say Jesus is saying my Father, my Father, why have you forsaken me and abandoned me and I've never understood that. And then when I look at my version, it's not even close. In Luke, you know, it just it says my Father, my Father, I commit my spirit, which makes sense to me in the whole context of the gospel whereas being abandoned doesn't. And I listen to your lecture as well. So I most importantly wanted your thoughts on is my version is my Eastern version of the Bible okay? Do I should I check it out a different way?
Steve Gregg: Well, the thing is that Lamsa treats the Bible as if it was originally written in Aramaic. And so he makes a translation from Aramaic into English directly. I believe that the Aramaic Bible, which is also the ancient Syriac Bible, was translated from the Greek like all other New Testaments have been. The New Testament was written in Greek and and the Aramaic was translated from Greek into Aramaic long before Lamsa's time, just like it was also translated into Latin and subsequently to many others. So I wouldn't trust the Lamsa Bible over a Greek manuscript. The Greek manuscripts are going to be closer to what the authors wrote, I think. Lamsa's Aramaic is interesting in terms of I read more than one version of the Bible, but just for interest. But I think that why have you forsaken me is supported more in the Greek text and that's where I'd be more inclined to trust it. It's also of course what it says in Psalm 22:1 which Jesus was quoting. So yeah, I wouldn't follow Lamsa on that. All right? Appreciate you. Thanks much. Bye-bye. Okay, thank you brother. God bless. You've been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let's talk again tomorrow.