The Narrow Path 08/21/2026

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. We are on Monday through Friday at this same time for an hour with a live broadcast on most of these stations. Some of the stations play it later. If that's the case, then you're not listening to it live and you can't call in during the show. Although you can call in to the show even if it's not broadcast on your station any day between 2:00 and 3:00 in the afternoon Pacific Time is when we're live. And the number to call is 844-484-5737. The idea is to call in with any questions you might have about the Christian faith or the Bible and we'll talk about those together. You can certainly also use your time on the air to disagree with the host and to present an alternative view. So we welcome you to do so. The lines are mostly open and this is Friday, the last chance you'll have to get onto the program before the weekend. If you'd like to call, this is a good time to do so. The number is 844-484-5737. One more time that number is 844-484-5737. I want to remind you that I will be speaking in some churches and other venues up in the Fresno, California area and Clovis and Oakhurst up that way this next weekend, not this weekend, not today and tomorrow and the next day, but a week from now. If you're in that area and want to come, then you can go to our website to see where those meetings are being held and just show up. You can go to thenarrowpath.com. That's our website. Look at the tab that says announcements and you'll get all that information. Two weeks later, I'll be speaking in the Sacramento area a number of places. So if you're in Sacramento and interested in knowing that, that's about three weeks from now. And those meetings are also listed at thenarrowpath.com under the tab that says announcements. All right, we're going to go to the phones right now and I will remind you, since we have a couple lines still open, the number is 844-484-5737. Our first caller today is Ron, calling from Sun City, Arizona. Hi, Ron, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Ron: Hi, Steve. I listen all the time, but this is the first time I've called in a long time because I have a question. It has to do with the parable of when Jesus talks about workers in a field, some worked all day, some worked part of the day, but they all got the same wage. You know which one I'm talking about? Could you tell me where that's at and read it and then explain what he's talking about there? Is that the Jews and the Gentiles? Who's he talking about? And what's the wage?
Steve Gregg: Yeah, that's actually in Matthew 20 verses 1 through 16. In this story, Jesus talked about a man who had a vineyard and he needed workers. So he went out in the morning and found some guys standing around and said, "Hey, come work in my vineyard and I'll give you a day's wage," which was a denarius a day. That was a standard day's wage for a laborer. So they went out into the field. But he realized he needed more, so a few hours later he went out and made the same offer. He didn't tell what he's going to pay the others, he just said, "Come on out and work." And he did that several other times during the day. So at intervals during the day, he hired different workers. The first ones he told what he's going to pay them, but he didn't tell the others what they'll be paid. As it turned out when the day was over and it was time for them to come to the paymaster to get their wages for the day, the ones who'd worked the shortest time were the ones who were called in to be paid first and then so forth going back to those that spent the longest time. It turns out those who'd worked only an hour, they got a denarius, which was a day's wage. So the guys who'd worked longer said, "Well, this guy's feeling generous, he'll probably give us more." But as it turned out, they all got a denarius, even the ones who worked all day long. So the guys who worked all day long were complaining about that. They thought it wasn't very fair. The owner, which represents God or Jesus, said in verse 13, "Friend, I'm doing you no wrong. Did not you agree with me for a denarius?" And he said, "Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil," meaning are you greedy, "because I'm good?" Then Jesus said, "So the last shall be first and the first last." Now, this statement "the last shall be first and the first last" is something Jesus says on a number of occasions. When he does, he seems to be saying that those who would seemingly be expected to be first in privilege, usually meaning the Jews, sometimes it could mean the rich, but more often than not he's talking about the Jews because they had an advantage over the Gentiles in that God had revealed himself to them and given them their instructions about worshipping him and established their nation and so forth, and he'd done that for no other nation. So they were the ones who felt they were the ones worthy of privilege and expected privilege. It turns out that they didn't get any more privilege than those who come in later, which would represent Gentiles in this case. So the idea here is that the Jews have, in some respects, suffered for God through centuries before any Gentiles came in. At the end of the age when the judgment comes, the Jews, that is the faithful ones, will perhaps be inclined to complain that they had to suffer the reproach of God much longer than any of these Gentiles who've come into the church these latecomers. But that God's going to give the Gentiles and the Jews the same salvation. That is, he's not going to penalize the Gentiles because they weren't invited earlier.
Ron: So it's salvation, it's not rewards? It's entrance into the kingdom, not the same rewards?
Steve Gregg: Right, exactly. I mean it's very clear from the denarius. That's right. Gentiles will be permitted into the kingdom on the same basis as the Jews. Now this is not talking about rewards. When Jesus talks about rewards, usually the parables that he uses, and there were two of them, one in Matthew 25 and one in Luke 19, he describes a man who gave his estate into the hands of stewards, servants, to invest it while he was away and to make him a profit on it while he was away. When he came back, they got different rewards for how well they'd stewarded. It's a different concept, a different kind of parable. This parable isn't the same as those. It doesn't cancel them out. It's making a different point. It's simply saying that everybody is saved on the same basis and it doesn't matter if you're part of the Jewish race, which has been laboring for God for hundreds of years more than the Gentiles have been, but God wants them all saved.
Ron: That's super. Yeah, that's great. You answered my question. I was wondering what he's talking about there with the ones that were there a short time got the same wage as the ones who were there all day. But like you said, they agreed.
Steve Gregg: That's how it's described.
Ron: Okay, thank you, Steve. That was awesome. All right, thanks.
Steve Gregg: All right, God bless. Thanks for your call. Gary from Tampa, Florida is next. Welcome to The Narrow Path, Gary.
Gary: Yeah, I just had a question about something I researched for a few years about the end of the Book of Acts 1:3 where it talks about Jesus actually spent more time than the 40 days with his disciples, but it's not written in the Bible. So I researched it and I found a book which is from the Mashafakadahn and it is called Christ After the Resurrection. It's called the 40 Days and the subtitle is Christ After the Resurrection. Those 40 days supposedly they're filled in. I've read it quite a few times. Wow is all I can say.
Steve Gregg: Where does this guy claim to get his information?
Gary: This originally comes from Clement was the writer of it from what I understand now. Clement, which was like the fourth Pope and also was one of the disciples of Peter. So from Peter to Clement in before 100 AD written, this is supposedly.
Steve Gregg: Well, there were two Clements. One was Clement of Rome and he is no doubt the one that the Catholics claim was the second Pope. There was Clement of Alexandria also like two centuries or three later.
Gary: So it would have been the first. Okay, the first then, right. Because we don't have from the Book of Acts 1:3 when you read it, it says and Jesus spent more time with his disciples, 40 days.
Steve Gregg: What do you mean more than what?
Gary: More than 40 days. He spent more than the original time, like when you read scriptures, which of course I believe all of what I read scripturally. But there was more to it than where he came back to his disciples and he was gone pretty quickly after resurrection.
Steve Gregg: Hang on, I'm not following you. You're saying that when the Book of Acts says that Jesus after his resurrection spent 40 days with his disciples and then he ascended, you're saying he actually spent more than 40 days? And that information is coming from where? From a book you read?
Gary: Well, not more than 40 days. You're already answering more questions than I even asked. I guess that Jesus was with the disciples for three days and then a total of 40 days including the entirety of the time he was back with them. After he came back.
Steve Gregg: This isn't mysterious stuff. It basically says that after his resurrection he spent 40 days talking to them about the kingdom of God and then he ascended. You're trying to make it longer or you're trying to speculate about what went on during those 40 days?
Gary: Well, what I'm trying to understand is when we talk about the 40 days, do you believe we don't have information about it? The Bible doesn't give us information.
Steve Gregg: Well, I'm saying that I believe that I have the information in what it talks about, what it discusses he did in the 20 days. And where did you get the information, not from the Bible, right? Who can say that it wasn't put in the Bible? People may say it's not part of the original canon or what have you. Well, I'm not sure where you're going with this. I'm going to have to move along. You're not making yourself clear. It's not in the Bible. You have another book of some kind. You said it's based on Clement of Rome. I don't know if you're talking about Clement's actual writing or somebody else has written a book based on what Clement allegedly said. You're not making yourself clear, but I've got a lot of people waiting and I've been trying to get from you a statement of what your question is and I'm not hearing it. And then it seems like you're contradicting yourself because several times you said it's more than 40 days, then when I asked if that's what you're saying, you said no. So maybe you could call back after you've written your question down. Figure out what your question is, write it down, make sure that what you've written down actually is a summary of what you are asking and call me back.
Gary: I just want to ask just this one question. Because we can't account for the full 40 days, does that mean it's not written?
Steve Gregg: Well, I can account for it. It's accounted for right here in verse 3. It says that Jesus was with them for 40 days talking to them the things of the kingdom of God. That gives account of it. Now, if you mean because we don't have detailed information about what was said and done each day of those 40 days, yeah, we don't have that about the life of Jesus in general. The truth is, before Jesus died, he ministered for about three and a half years. But we only have about 39 days of that three and a half years recorded in the gospels. The gospels just select from things that happened during that time altogether like 39 days. Now you could say, "Well, then the other days are not accounted for." Well, I guess maybe they're not accounted for in the sense you're talking about. I assume that the apostles had the good sense to include the things in their gospels that they felt were the things that Jesus wanted them to pass along to their readers. If you think, "Well, they didn't make a very good choice in what they left out, so we'll go to find some other books to tell us," well, feel free to do that. I just don't know how you'd find any reason to believe the other books. I know who Matthew and Mark and Luke and John are. I also know who Clement of Rome was, but I don't know where this information is come from that you're alluding to. Anyway, if you want to give us a more succinct question about this, feel free to write it down, make sure you know what you're going to say, and then call me back. I'd love to hear it, but I don't like to wander around all over the place while I'm looking at a board of people all waiting to get on after you and we don't have much time. I appreciate you joining us. Call back when you can maybe summarize that a little more. Ellen in California, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Ellen: Yes, hi. Thank you for having me. I'll make this as quick as possible here. I've had a revolving door struggle with gambling, stopping, returning, and then convincing myself that maybe gambling isn't the problem as long as I can eventually learn to control it and do it responsibly. That's the question I really want to put to rest biblically because even when I imagine myself gambling with complete control, my conscience still bothers me. And I look at other people across the table and I wonder whether they have a gambling problem also and if they need their money. So when I'm winning, I'm not really even enjoying the winning, but I want to learn how to control it because it's something I love to do, but I have been dubbed a gambling addict and I've been in and out of recovery.
Steve Gregg: All right, well let me just address that. You've given me a lot of helpful information. One is that when you gamble, your conscience bothers you. You don't have any certainty that this is the right thing for you to be doing. And therefore you don't enjoy it. That could be how the Holy Spirit is dealing with you. You've got a gambling addiction, you say. It's obviously a problem and you're just wondering if you can beat the addiction and still do the gambling. Most people who are in bondage to a behavior, let's say it's drinking, gambling, whatever, food, if they can't control it, they pretty much should avoid anything, any situation where they might abuse it, especially if they have a track record of abusing it. An alcoholic, as they might describe themselves, someone who thinks they're addicted to alcohol, would be wise to not drink any alcohol at all. Now, I don't say Christians can't drink. I'm not saying drinking alcohol itself is a sin, certainly not forbidden in scripture. But if you can't control yourself, the Bible does say that's something you shouldn't do. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:12, "All things are lawful to me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." So he's talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols, he's talking about that kind of thing. But he's saying it's not a sin to eat anything in particular, but if something is getting a grip on you, if something's got a hold on you, you're in bondage to it, he says, "I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to let myself be in bondage to it." Now, I would say this. The Bible does not forbid gambling. But I would say as a person who understands Christianity to mean wanting to do everything for the glory of God and recognizing that God owns all that I have and all my use of my resources should be seen as a stewardship of God's resources because they're not really mine. Whatever I have in terms of finances or resources, those are a gift from God, but they're not a straight-out gift. They're an entrust, they're a trust. He's put them in our hands to manage for him and to advance his interests, which would be his kingdom. Now, I don't gamble. I never really wanted to. But I mean if someone wanted me to, I would say, "Well, aren't there better things that my money can be used for for the kingdom of God?" Now, I'm not real legalistic about this. I mean I've never done this, but if someone wanted to play Monopoly and whoever wins gets a dollar from the other person or something, I don't think people do that, but to play a game where you risk a dollar, I don't think that dollar is going to be used for very much else than that. I don't think it's wrong to spend a little money on entertainment. And if gambling isn't costing much of anything and you're not an addict or you're not in bondage to it, then maybe it's not a bad stewardship. I just can always think of a lot better things to do with the money that God's entrusted to me than to give it to a casino or something like that. Now, of course the gambler doesn't plan to give anything to the casino, the gambler hopes to go home with more money. That's the idea. But gaining money, the Bible actually lays out the way to gain money and it's through labor. The Bible indicates that a person should labor for their food and whoever doesn't work should not eat. And that wealth is a result of labor. The Bible says that many, many times throughout the Old Testament and the New. And so, if I want to gain some money, I suppose the wisest thing would be to go to work. One thing, if I go to work for money, at least I won't lose my investment. I mean I invest some time and energy and I might lose that if somebody stiffs me, but generally speaking, if you're in a reliable employment situation, the work you put out predictably provides money and you lose no money doing it. Whereas when you're gambling, you're taking the risk, you might lose the money. And unless you've got an awful lot of money to spare, you're not doing a very wise thing. Now, you say you enjoy gambling. Okay, well, I'm not saying that again gambling in itself is a sin if it's low-stakes stuff that isn't controlling to you. I always like what C.S. Lewis said because frankly I can relate with what he said. He said gambling is one of the few vices I've never had the slightest temptation toward. He said, "If someone wants to play bridge with me, I just say how much do you want to win? Take it and go." I'll pay you off not to have to do that. I have no interest in that. So I've never been tempted with that. I've been tempted with other things. And the things I'm tempted with, I try to avoid altogether. If I was tempted with gambling, I would try to avoid that too. There are other ways to enjoy oneself. I mean frankly there are people who'd say they enjoy themselves with pornography, but it's not a there's certainly better ways to enjoy oneself and pornography becomes an addiction and it's wrong in itself. So, just because something is enjoyable doesn't mean that it's the best way to occupy our time. If one can gamble for a few bucks with their friends and that's all they ever risk, well, I don't see any sin in that. But on the other hand, you've said you have a problem with it. And if you got a problem with it, I just would stay far away from it. There's certainly better ways to spend your money and your time and there's better ways to steward God's money than to put it at risk in a game. That's my thoughts on this. You don't have to go with what I say, but those would certainly be the way I would look at the situation.
Ellen: Well, that really thank you. That gives me some biblical principle to base this on because it's that gambling mind versus the wise mind. And even if I could gamble responsible and control it, I wanted to know how to determine biblically whether gambling is something that God is asking me personally to leave behind altogether. And I believe you just summed it up for me.
Steve Gregg: Well, I think you could say what is the best use the money God has put in my hands can be put to in order to promote his kingdom. Because when he comes back, he's going to ask me what I did with his money, because it's all his. And to say, "Well, I gambled most of it away or a lot of it away" is going to be part of the answer you'd rather avoid giving, I think. Anyway, I appreciate your call and God bless you. I hope many people who are listening will be praying for you to be successful and victorious in this matter. God bless you. All right, well, I'm not going to take a call right now because we're up against a hard break and we've got quite a few calls waiting, callers waiting. You're listening to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg. If you've never heard the program before, we've been on every weekday pretty much for going on 30 years now. Been on for a long time. Not on all of our stations. We've added some stations in just the past few months. So we might be new in your area. If you're unfamiliar with the show, we do this every day. It's live. People can call in, ask any Bible question, any Christian question, disagree with the host if they want to. This is always welcome here. And we are listener-supported. There will be no commercials ever in our program unless some radio station sticks them on without telling us, and they're not supposed to because we're buying the time outright. Anyway, but we are listener-supported. If you'd like to help us pay the radio bills, you can write to us at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Now, we're not done with the show. The music is playing, but we have another half hour coming. We just take a break at this point to let you know how you can reach us. Our website is just chalk full of resources that you can benefit from. They're all free. Nothing is for sale there. Check that out. It's thenarrowpath.com is the website, thenarrowpath.com. And I'm going to take a break for about 30 seconds and come back to take calls again for another half hour. So stay tuned. Take The Narrow Path with you everywhere on your phone or other device by downloading our app from the App Store or from Google Play. You can listen to the radio broadcasts live or later from the app as well as many other lectures posted at our website. Search for the app by typing the same name as the website, The Narrow Path, and enjoy the learning experience. It's rare to get such good stuff for free these days. Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour, taking your calls. Our lines are full, so I won't give out the number at this point. And so we'll go directly to the callers. And let's see, the longest there is going to be Richard from Moreno Valley, California. Hi, Richard, welcome.
Richard: Hello?
Steve Gregg: Hi, you're on the air. Please speak.
Richard: Oh, okay. I had a question on my heart that's been on here for a while and I forget to ask it anytime I want to call and I always think of something else. But you would know where it's at and I've read it before. A woman tells Jesus, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth," and he replies, "More blessed is he that hears the word of God and does it." So it's taking whatever he said "blessed is the mother" meaning Mary. And what the question is about Mary and how do Catholics get past that one when Jesus is saying, "No, don't go that way. Blessed is the person who believes in what I say and not going through that way." I wanted to just mention I have my nephews, I'm living in Moreno Valley and I have nephews up in Santa Cruz and they went to see you last year. You were at Pasatiempo in Santa Cruz? Yes, I was. Yes, sir. And they were blown away. They're like, "We've been to churches and we've been to this and that, and we haven't heard the message spoken to us the way this gentleman put it towards us." But one of my nieces that went there anyway, she's been diagnosed with stage 2 cancer. And I just wanted to mention to all of the listeners that they would pray for her in Santa Cruz. Her name is Beatrice and her husband is my nephew Christopher. They catch it early enough. But back to the original question. How do Catholics get past that one?
Steve Gregg: All right, well I hope many of our listeners will be praying for Beatrice. Now, the scripture you're referring to is in Luke 11:27 and 28. It says, "And it happened as he spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to him, 'Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts which nursed Jesus.'" Okay, so she's saying blessed is your mother. Like what a lucky woman to have such a great son, she's saying. So blessed is your mother, the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you. And he said, "More than that." Now some translations say, "No." Some say, "No, more blessed are those who hear the word and who keep it." So it's interesting because he doesn't say that his mother is not blessed, but it kind of implies that anyone who hears the word of God and keeps it is as blessed as his mother is, and the way it's worded almost sounds like more blessed than she is. Now, I will say this. There was a point in Jesus' ministry where Mary's support of his ministry was not unqualified. That is, in Mark chapter 3, it says when Jesus was teaching and ministering so much, he didn't even take time to sleep or to eat meals. Now you can imagine how a Jewish mother would feel about her boy if he's not sleeping or eating meals. And it says his mother and his brothers came to visit him. In fact, it actually says his relatives came because they thought he was kind of going off the rails. It said they thought he was beside himself. And so they came to basically do an intervention. And when the people told Jesus, "Your mother and your brothers are here," he said, "Who are my mother and who are my brothers?" He said, "Behold my mother and my brothers," sweeping his arm toward the crowd. He said, "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my mother and my brother." Now, what's interesting there, he may have been implying that his actual mother and brothers were not doing the will of the Father at that moment. They were, I mean not like they were in rebellion against God or they were bad or whatever. They just weren't sensing what God's will was and they weren't on God's mission. But you know, and here too, "Blessed is your mother. Well, more blessed are those who hear the word of God and do it." Now, it may be that Mary was at home in Nazareth and she wasn't following him around, she wasn't hearing him do it, hearing him teach preach the whole time. Sometimes she apparently was and sometimes not. But the point is that whether he's saying that Mary was deficient in these areas at these particular moments or not, he's making it very clear that she doesn't deserve any particular honor more than anyone else who's an obedient child of God. So what do the Catholics say? I've actually brought that up both with Tim Staples, the Catholic apologist I debated, and also later with Jimmy Akin, another Catholic apologist. They, I don't think they said anything very memorable or very valid. I can't remember their exact words, except that they just said, "Well, you know, she's not the only one who's blessed, others are blessed too." Well, that's not the way Jesus said it, but anyway, of course it's very important to them in the Hail Mary and so forth to say that she's blessed above all women because she was, she was blessed above all women with the blessing of having the Messiah as a child. But they make it sound like she's forever more blessed than all women as if having a baby marks you for the rest of your life. More than that, they don't even go to him to pray, they go to her to pray. Some of them do, you're right. So anyway, yeah, I don't think they have a good answer. I've asked them, I've heard their answer, their answer was not memorable. If they'd given me a really good answer, I would definitely remember it because I wouldn't want to, I like to know what the answers are that people give so I don't ask the question again and get the same answer. Anyway, no, I don't remember them saying anything very to the point. It seems to me like they just said, "Well, she's, he's just saying that in addition to her, others are blessed too." Well, that's not exactly what he said.
Richard: Because right after I've asked Catholic friends and they hear what I say and they don't have an answer for it and they get really disturbed by it and they don't want to continue the conversation and I'm like, "Okay, we don't have to continue the conversation." But just that they got caught and had to hold their tongue.
Steve Gregg: Well, there's going to be probably two kinds of people in the Catholic faith that you'll talk to and bring those kind of points up. One will be those who really, they honor the Bible, and they recognize what you're saying is a true challenge, and it's going to shake up their confidence in some of the teachings of the Catholic Church on this matter. But probably more than that, you're going to find Catholics who they just say, "Well, I don't understand it, but the Pope and the bishops, they understand this stuff." The whole idea of the Catholic Church is you can't really trust your own lying eyes when you read the Bible, you have to believe what the bishops and the Pope say. They're trained, they're trained to understand this stuff, you're not. And so many of them will probably just look at you as if like, "Well, who are you to question the traditions of the fathers and the popes and the bishops?" And in their mind, there's no good answer that you're nobody. But there are those who believe that Jesus is somebody and what he has to say about this they may take seriously if they're not too cultically loyal to the papacy and all that. Thanks for your call, brother. Thanks for joining us. Let's talk to Nathan in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho next. Nathan, welcome.
Nathan: Hi, can you hear me? Is this better right here?
Steve Gregg: That is much better. Go ahead, please.
Nathan: My daughter texted me, she said we should ask Steve Gregg how Paul was born a citizen of Rome but was also a Jew.
Steve Gregg: Yeah, the Romans granted citizenship to various people in their empire for special favors or payments that were made. A very wealthy person, Jewish or otherwise, could make a payment to Rome and receive the status of citizenship, or it was sometimes awarded on the basis of heroic deeds done in battle on behalf of Rome. It was like a special privilege. Now you buy it for your family if you buy it. It's not likely since Paul's father was a Pharisee, and he tells us that in scripture that he's the son of a Pharisee, it's not likely that his father had done any great battle exploits in the Roman army, very unlikely that he'd be in the Roman army, but he might be rich and he may well have purchased citizenship for all those in his family so that and this even before Paul was born perhaps because he said he was born a citizen. Of course, that comes out in that conversation between him and a Roman soldier who's about to beat him, and Paul says, "Is it lawful for you to beat and bind a Roman citizen who's not been tried and uncondemned?" And the man said, "You're a Roman citizen?" And the Roman said, "I paid a great amount of money for my citizenship," and Paul said, "Well, I was born with it." And so they didn't beat him because citizenship conferred special privileges. The average Joe Blow in the Roman Empire wasn't a citizen, but those who were had privileges others didn't. For example, a Roman citizen could not be crucified. Now, crucifixion was the main form of capital punishment in the Roman Empire for people who didn't have the privilege and exemption of citizenship. Now, a citizen could still be put to death, but he wouldn't be subjected to the torturous crucifixion, they'd be beheaded. And so Paul eventually was beheaded. Jesus on the other hand was crucified, and so was Peter because they didn't have Roman citizenship, and some of the other apostles were crucified too. But that's one thing a Roman citizen had was exemption from crucifixion. Another was that they could not be bound or beaten without first being condemned in court. So they had to have due process, they couldn't for example be interrogated in view of a coming-up trial to get confessions out of them by flogging or something like that. Jesus was interrogated that way. He was not a Roman citizen, and the 39 lashes they got was part of the interrogation to get him to confess stuff, which he didn't. And so a Roman, if he had not been condemned in court, could not be bound, he could not be beaten, and that was the issue that came up on the occasion when Paul and that guard were talking about it. And then, of course, the other thing is that a Roman citizen uniquely could appeal his case to Caesar if he was on trial. He could go to the highest court. Just like going to the Supreme Court, not everybody gets their case to the Supreme Court although our Constitution suggests they should be able to, but not all do, but a Roman citizen was guaranteed if he called for it a trial before Caesar himself. And of course, we do find in the 25th chapter I think it is of Acts that Paul appealed to Caesar his case and so he was sent to Caesar. So he had citizenship rights and he was born with them, which must mean that his family had gotten them earlier probably through a payment. We don't know the details of that. Now you had another question.
Nathan: I do. Another person that is very dear to me, she says discerning Catholicism. I don't really know what that means but I have an idea. But she has said that I am arrogant because I don't trust the church, the Catholic Church. That I know more than they do. I pointed out a few things just in scripture that I guess some of the things that Catholics believe that I don't really find in either the Old or the New Testament. And she said about Peter when he says, "Stand firm and hold to the traditions." And so from there it's kind of like anything the church has come up with between 300 and now is a tradition and we can't really question it, we have to just hold fast to them.
Steve Gregg: Well, Peter didn't say that about traditions, Paul did. And Paul said that, you know, hold fast to the traditions that you received from us either by word or by letter. In other words, the apostolic teachings were the traditions. That is to say, some things were passed down from Paul which are apostolic, just like the scriptures he wrote are apostolic. You know, the things Paul said in person to people had the same apostolic authority as the things he wrote to them when he was away from them. It was his authority as an apostle that made them binding. Now, the Catholic Church claims that there's a whole bunch of apostolic teachings that were preserved by word of mouth through the ages in the church, although the Bible does not tell us of any such. Paul does tell Timothy in 2 Timothy 2, "The things you've heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, the same commit those to faithful men who will in turn teach others." So Paul did teach Timothy certain things and he told Timothy to communicate those things with other men who were faithful enough to keep them taught. So there obviously, in so far as these men remain faithful and did pass them down, we can hope that some of these spoken things that Paul or maybe the other apostles said were preserved. We just don't know who preserved them because the Eastern Church and the Western Church and the African Church and the Syrian Church and so forth, they don't all have all the same customs and yet they would presumably all suggest that these came down from what the apostles' traditions were. We can't just assume that the Catholic Church has the right traditions when other churches that are as ancient as they are have different traditions. How do we know the Catholic Church has the right ones? We can test them by scripture. One thing I could be sure of is that if Paul taught things that were passed along, they wouldn't contradict the things that he actually wrote down, which have also been passed along in writing. So there might be some question about some spoken traditions Paul or Peter gave which some church may claim that they have preserved, but there's no question about the things they wrote. And so to my mind, if it's in their writings, I know it's trustworthy. If it's not in their writings, who knows what it you know what it might they might have said. Now if your friend says you're arrogant because you choose to believe the Bible instead of believing the Popes, well, she's made a choice too. She's chosen to believe the Popes. Is she arrogant because she makes a choice? Everyone has to make a choice. Everyone's got to decide who's credible. Everybody's got to decide who's got authority they're going to follow. And the Protestant says, "I'm going to follow how about the Bible? I'll follow the Bible." The Catholic says, "Well, I'll follow the Bible and the traditions of the church, but where there's a difference between the traditions of the church and the Bible, I'll go with the traditions of the church anyway." And that's many times the case. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the sinlessness of Mary, the exalted position of Mary as an intercessor for us. These things seem to go against what the New Testament writers believed. The whole imposition of images in the church certainly goes against written scripture. The idea that priests have to be celibate unmarried men. No, in the Bible a bishop has to be married, a husband of one woman with children. I mean in other words, the traditions of the Catholic Church go right against what the Bible says on a number of things. So, I've got to decide am I going to believe what God said, which is kind of plain in black and white? It's not as if I have to have some mysterious revelation to understand what it's talking about. Paul wasn't writing to people who were super scholars or had mystical perception. He was writing to ordinary people. And I'm an ordinary person, so I can understand what he said, at least most of it. And the parts I can understand tell me that some of the things the Catholic Church teaches aren't agreeable with what the apostles taught. So, I don't think it's arrogant to say I'll submit to what the word of God says. In fact, that's kind of the humble thing people are supposed to do. What the word of God says I'll do it. Your friend is doing the same thing only toward a different authority than the word of God. She's doing it toward a bunch of people. A bunch of people by the way who throughout history have shown themselves to be capable of being extremely corrupt because the Catholic Church has had centuries of corrupt popes. We know there's corrupt priests. And I'm not blaming them for being worse than other churches. Protestant churches have corrupt ministers too. But that's why we don't trust in man, because men are corruptible. We trust in the word of God, which is incorruptible, the Bible says. So, I don't think it's arrogant to say I'm going to just how about if I just believe what God said? We'll go with that. And you say no, we're going to believe what these guys say. These guys who have given no evidence of being infallible, they've given no evidence of being uncorruptible, they've not even given any evidence that we can be sure they're even honest. And we have no evidence that the traditions they have were ever passed down verbally by the apostles. So, I'm not being arrogant. I'm just saying let's be sensible. Let's say if I have to follow Christ and my following of Christ is going to determine my salvation, how about if I go with what Jesus said? Jesus said that in John 12, I think it's verse 48, I may have the wrong verse but I think it's 48. He said, "He that has my words and does not do them has one that judges him. The words that I have spoken to you will judge him in the last day." So I'm told that by Jesus himself that the words he spoke are the words that are going to be brought up to judge me on the last day. Not the words of a pope, not the words of a bishop, not the words of grandma or grandpa or the Sunday school teacher or the pastor. The words of Jesus. So since Jesus himself said that's what I'm going to be judged by, I wouldn't call me arrogant if I say I'd just as soon follow the words that the Bible says I'm going to be judged by. Seems like just kind of common sense to me. Anyway, I appreciate your call, brother. Thanks for joining us. Let's talk to Steven in San Diego, California. Been waiting a long time. Hi, Steven, welcome.
Steven: Yes, hello. If Satan's main objective was to keep Jesus from going to the cross, then why did he get in Judas and influence him to turn him in?
Steve Gregg: Yeah, I don't know that Satan's main objective was to keep Jesus from going to the cross. I know some pastors say that because we know that at the cross Jesus actually defeated Satan. But the Bible also says in 1 Corinthians 2 that the rulers of this world didn't understand that that would be the case, that through the cross the devil would be defeated. The devil didn't know that was going to happen. It seems to me that the devil did want Jesus crucified. He put it in Judas's heart to betray him. He certainly was in charge of the people who lied about him and condemned him and so forth. He's the father of lies. So I have to think the devil did want Jesus crucified. What I believe though is that Satan didn't know that this would be his own doom. I believe this was a rather secret strategy Christ had to defeat Satan on his own terms. He who had the power of death to defeat him by dying and then rising again and defeating death. But I mean even Christians who believe this sometimes have different ways of explaining it because it's not the easiest thing to understand exactly how it worked and the devil didn't know apparently. So yeah, I don't think it was the devil's primary objective to prevent Jesus from going to the cross. I think he was quite willing to have Jesus go there. I appreciate your call. Let's talk to David in Atlanta, Georgia. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
David: Hey Steve, thanks. So when I previously asked a question about whether the crucifixion could be the abomination, you mentioned Luke 21:20 and Luke identifying the surrounding armies as the abomination. So I have a follow-up question. Luke doesn't say that specifically. He says, "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near." And so in Matthew and Mark, that phrase can grammatically be read roughly as the abomination, namely its desolation. So my question is why should we understand Luke as identifying the armies as the abomination rather than saying that the armies signal the approaching desolation resulting from a previous earlier abomination?
Steve Gregg: Okay, good question. Well, the reason I accept Luke's position is because I accept him as a writer of scripture and I accept everything that scripture says. What we see is that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 all give the same discourse of Jesus. We also know that Luke and even Mark on occasion will paraphrase things Jesus said. Jesus often used Hebraic expressions and Matthew retains them because he wrote to Hebrews, that is he wrote to Jews who knew these expressions. Mark was writing to people probably in Rome who were probably not Jews. We know Luke was writing to a Greek man named Theophilus. And these Gentiles who were less familiar with the Hebrew expressions, we can see with our own eyes that Mark and Luke both sometimes will paraphrase a Hebraism to make it easier, so that when Jesus said kingdom of heaven, which the Jews would understand to mean kingdom of God, Mark and Luke simply change it to kingdom of God. And they change it from kingdom of heaven to kingdom of God because that's what their readers would understand better. Matthew and Mark both use the expression abomination of desolation. Luke doesn't. He substitutes something for it. If you just go through all three versions of the same discourse, you can see that at the very point where Matthew and Mark say when you see the abomination of desolation then flee you in Judea flee to the mountains, Luke at verse 20 says in Luke 21:20 when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies know that its desolation is near then you who are in Judea flee to the mountains. In other words, he's simply substituted the expression the abomination of desolation. He's paraphrased it to let his reader know that that rather obscure Hebraism means the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. And you can I guess try to explain the difference in Luke's some other way, but I don't believe that Luke is talking about a different discourse. I think that you can see by going verse by verse through all three versions of it that at the point where Luke says this, it's the very point where in Matthew and Mark Jesus is saying when you see the abomination of desolation, Luke just substitutes that phrase for Jerusalem surrounded by armies. I also mentioned because you asked, I don't think the cross was the abomination of desolation for the simple reason that Jesus said when you see this, flee from Jerusalem. And they didn't. When Jesus crucified, they didn't flee from Jerusalem. They fled from Jerusalem later when the Romans were coming, but they stayed in Jerusalem basically for 40 years after Jesus was crucified. So they apparently didn't understand his death to be the abomination of desolation because that would have signaled their command to flee the country. Anyway, I appreciate your call. We're out of time. You've been listening to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. We are listener supported. You can write to us at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593 or go to our website thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.