The Narrow Path 7/16

Welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast, Steve, Greg and were live for an hour each weekday with an open phone line so you can: if you have questions we'd like to ask and discuss about the Bible and the Christian faith or if you have a different viewpoint from the host. It may be that your Christian with a different viewpoint on something as there are many on the one hand, or maybe you're not a Christian and you just disagree with everything the host believes which is I believe the Bible I believe in Christ and if you don't believe in those things you may want to call in and we can talk about that anyway. The number to call to be on the program is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 and a first color today is Michael coming from California. Michael looking to the narrow path. Thanks for calling hi. Good to hear you is willing yes so I've been contemplating quite a bit and going back to genitive in the beginning God paraphrasing God created the heavens and the earth is a little bit.

Michael Terry should go ahead and yes okay I been thinking about you. So, for it and going back to Genesis that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and it began definitely. Everything in the beginning but that was the beginning of the creation before the one would have to is so that God existed as a sovereign being and as a singularity, not as a multiplicity. Only God before the creation God creates the world six days and the rest on the seventh day, and God looks at at what had what he has accomplished and thinks this is a good. It is good then I guess after the after the fall and they started to go south. Not so good. And of course he clean the slate. No in the military can all of that. You question behind white man I'm getting to my question is, God existed as a singularity, and if it is a two-part question. What exactly would be the reason for creating a multiplicity.

Once the multiplicity or the creation in this, then obviously he was displeased with it.

So is the idea that God was a singularity by God alone guy was the only being in the universe.

After the creation there are many, many being that the end goal will be that universe will exist as a multiplicity, but it will be aligned with God's will. All all of this. So what is question the whole creation for the purpose of establishing a a a a dual rather than a non-dual singular universe Michael Michael what is your question, please let not getting to leave you.

It sounded like a good and ongoing comment could give a question I was getting to the question please if you can't get to the next 30 seconds out.

With luck, that a lot of people waiting but go ahead stating 30 seconds was the purpose of the creation. To establish a multiplicity in harmony with what will local or parts of it. What was the purpose of the creation of what why could. Why could God have noticeably remained asleep regarding was with her a need with a lacking Kayla need for calendars or silence.

Okay because we don't need to go on and on and I think yes this last lesson you called is what God create things.

I think the way to understand it would be skinny but God's creative that's his nature. Just like some people are created outside everybody's creative everyone comes up with a name for the child if they have a child, I have a net lease gives a name to a dog or cat. That's because people come up with stuff and they've may create stuff animals are created animals build things because they have the instinct to do so. For example, beavers build dams and birds build nests and spiders build webs, but they don't create anything that is signal spider ever had a creative genius to let's say improve on the web or a beaver to improve on a damp data just by instinct do with her what their ancestors did for thousands of years. So that's not creativity that's that's God's creativity displayed in giving them the ability to construct things but that God gave us actual creativity and we we know something about creative instincts because we have them and that's why no doubt there are people who like to make up songs or make up stories or make up artwork sculpture or inventions anywhere were inventive people. That's because we are made in the nature and image of God. Unlike the animals and so we should have some sympathy toward that those instincts in God that you know he's creative also like to create things so he did. He created a multitude of things planets and solar systems are as far as we know you whole universe of galaxies. So this is just God's creativity on display and of course he had very specific reasons for created man. We talked about that. I think last time you called but as far as your basic question simply did God need to have something more. I don't suppose he needed anything he existed just fine for eternity without anything to support him. But it's it's not a matter needed smell of enjoyment. I guess I guess a lot of people don't think of God as somebody who's who has the capacity for enjoyment is he does and it's the purpose of the creation is to bring pleasure to him now doesn't always do so, as you pointed out some of the people he made have turned out very badly, but that does mean the whole project is turned out badly because it's not over yet and we are told that when it is over, that the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will fill the earth as the waters cover the sea. That's on the good things from God's perspective and so the end is not yet we live in the midst of of the history of the world where there's still a great deal of rebellion against him, but we have every reason to believe that God knowing the outcome of things would create something that would ultimately bring pleasure to him and that in fact the Bible guarantees that it will so I would say that would be his reason.

It wouldn't be a matter of him having a need to be matter of him having enjoyment in his creative works are instructor Paul from Georgia.

Welcome to the nearby Paul, thanks for calling hi ask about timing of the crucifixion of something to argue that the contradiction between John and adopted, and in my okay to hit you explain about that. Well, about which think about what day it was what time of the day it was.

Which one which day okay well it says in the synoptic Gospels that Jesus kept the Passover with his disciples. We have to assume that that would be in the evening before the normal Passover day, because that's when the Passover is taken it's on the Passover is on a given day and the eve before that is when the Jews would have their Paschal meal and so I think that's when Jesus had his Paschal meal with his disciples just like Matthew Mark and Luke say now that I think the thing that raises questions about that in the minds of some people is that John tells us that when Jesus was on trial before Pilate, that the Jews did not wish to come into Pilate's house because they didn't want to defile themselves and prevent themselves from eating the Passover.

Now, of course, Jesus had had the Passover with his disciples the evening before that before he was arrested. Now he had been arrested was now the next day and the Jews had brought him to Pilate's house and they didn't want to defile themselves, which would prevent them from in the past of which makes it sound like they hadn't eaten Passover yet and therefore wasn't yet the Passover, when Jesus did it well. There's a number of theories about this. Some of them make more sense than others, and there are some who say that Galileans like Jesus and his disciples may have kept the Passover a day earlier than Judeans did we know there were some differences between these two sectors of the Jewish population of the if that was one of them or not. That would explain it. Perhaps like I've always explained much more simply than that that eating the Passover.

I believe refers to celebrating the entire week of unleavened bread, which was part of the Passover festival. The Passover was a certain day and then the seven days that followed were called the feast of unleavened bread, but the holes the whole week was sometimes called Passover as well so if Jesus and his disciples had the Passover meal on the night before his arrest, my assumptions, the rest the Jews did to but they haven't yet had the whole week of Passover meals. Of that is unleavened bread, meals, and therefore, although they had had the Paschal meal the night before they stood before Pilate, just like Jesus and his disciples had they still didn't want to defile themselves because there's a whole week of Passover yet to celebrate.

That is of the Passover week which would technically be the feast of unleavened bread, but so I think that they they just didn't want to interrupt that by getting ceremonially defiled.

Now course, the law of Moses never said that they be ceremonially defiled if they went into the house of Gentile. But the Jews had developed a tradition about that that if you going to house of a Gentile. Your defiled and they didn't want to do that because they wanted to finish out the week apart from that, I honestly don't know of any in any contradiction.

I'm sorry.

Just noise on your land you will thank you for your call. I hope that answers your question.

Talk to Nick from North Hollywood, California Nick, welcome to the narrow path is extra, brother Steve – looking for in your archives.

Hebrews 11 five which is by faith Enoch was translated that you and but when I went to 11, 13 week talks about all the rest of them. Sarah and Abraham and not it says he's old guy in faith.

So you like comment on the house at the bench but then offered Hebrews saying the these all died in faith, not having received the promises right like things to be understood that if he said one of the people he mentioned had not seen death did not die, that he does not mean that that person died in faith.

These all died in faith I take to be the people he's just been referring to torture Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, those guys the founders of the Jewish nation.

They all died in faith, because it says they had the promise, but they didn't they didn't wasn't realized in their time.

Well, the promises given to Abraham and passed on to Isaac and Jacob and therefore I don't consider that. He talked about the the ones before Abraham Enoch was before Abraham but here he says he read the passage in verse 13 these all died in faith, not having received the promises okay now a says that having seen them afar off, they were assured of them and embrace them and confess that they were strangers and pilgrims of the earth.

Now they confessed and embrace the promises that can be anyone before Abraham because the promises were made to Abraham and and and and Isaac and Jacob, whom he is just talked about.

So when he says these all died in faith, he means Abraham, Isaac and Jacob died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, they'd embrace them so the no one pride. A pen would've embrace promises that had not yet been made and Enoch lived. Before that, so there's not a reference to Enoch in the statement.

These all I when he says these all we have to take in the context of the onesies actually talking about right just immediately reference to that was in while I don't see how anybody can even remotely with anything you say we got in the Bible yet been such a blessing to the crave for you and your family and ministry for all our children well. Adults now to come to the kingdom of God and all the children especially us Christians, thank you so much brother Steve I love you in Christ, thank you Nick, I appreciate your call and your prayers for much Less you okay, Andrew, Massachusetts.

Welcome to the neuropathic for calling. I have a question for you and leadership in the church. I I am having a hard time finding a lot of talk about female leadership in the church, but it seems to be very popular and I was wondering if there was good evidence or want. Roles are appropriate leadership roles for women in the church and what your writing was on whether this there's a lot of the women in the Bible that were in some form of ministry. We don't have any evidence of any that were elders of churches, but that's not the only kind of ministry in churches.

There were deacons and deaconesses female deacons as well. Paul I think it alludes to in first Timothy three ways given the qualifications of elders and deacons and he mentions the deaconesses to but the word Deacon of course is the Greek word documents between servant and they were male and females who recognize as servants of the church and that's, that's certainly ministry that the word minister mean servant so so that would be a very deadbeat one of most exalted ministries in the church is that of a servant, because Jesus said in Matthew chapter 28 he said you know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you, whoever desires to become great among you, let them be your servant. Solve the greatest position in the church is that of a servant, and we do read of both men and women in that role. Phoebe and Romans 16, one is also referred to as a deaconess by Paul. Now, in addition to deaconesses.

There were also female evangelists.

In fact, the very first evangelist were women because the gospel is the message of the resurrection of Christ and the first people to know about the research of Christ were women and angels told them to go and announce that message to the apostles so the apostles themselves were evangelized by women and there's nothing in the Bible to suggest that women should not be evangelist as well as men.

And that's it. That's a great thing to be also. Paul also mentions prophetesses in fact inserted so Peter in first in acts chapter 2 in his preaching and quoting Joel he said your sons and your daughters will prophesy apart my Spirit on all flesh in your sons and your daughters will prophesy, so Paul talked about women prophesying in the church very you know positively. He said if a woman is properly adorned in the church she can prayer prophesy, but if she's not been she shouldn't same thing with a man man shouldn't prayer prophesy if is not properly adorned either. Paul talked with that first 2011 so you got women as evangelists and prophets, and servants.

The loftiest of all others. Also, of course, the role of women as mothers. Now I realize that we live in an age for motherhood is not considered to be a very which was a exalted position that is one of the weaknesses of the age we live in is they don't recognize what's good and what's bad.

You might notice today. What's evil is called good. What's good is called evil as part of the modern age. However, God doesn't go along with the modern age, God has his own thoughts and change them. He considered it mothers was a very valuable thing. Paul was very impressed with Timothy's mother and grandmother because they had taught Timothy the law from his childhood and so you know women can in fact be mothers and Trina the next generation of both men and women, their children. Another thing is a woman alongside her husband can even instruct a man. It says that in acts chapter 18 that Priscilla Nick will a married couple taught man who is a traveling missionary named Apollo's and this is not considered to be a negative thing.

So what we have. We got ministries women galore mean it and not what we don't see in the bottle is women in the role of elders because Paul said he didn't permit a woman to be in that position and an elder in the Bible is probably the closest analog that we have to a modern pastor. We didn't really have in the churches in Paul's day, the kind of church structure we have now with as a pastor is like a CEO, the big boss of the church you know they didn't have individual pastors and churches.

They had churches were governed locally by groups of elders, we find Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in every church, we find James talk about calling for the elders of the church that Paul writes to the Philippians and and greets the elders and the deacons of the church doesn't mention the pastor because they didn't have a pastor in those days the elders did the pastor. The word pastor and shepherd and the elders were told to shepherd the flock of God. In acts chapter 20 verse 28 and also Peter tells the elders to shepherd the flock in first Peter chapter 5 in the first four verses so an elder is the closest thing to a pastor that the early church knew and and women were not in that role, where Paul gave reasons for that. Paul indicated that the local church leadership should be run by men because God created men first and apparently intended them to lead and wife was made to be the woman is made to be his helper and he also mentions that the woman's role in the fall had something to do with his judgment, but the point is, Paul indicated that women ought not to be in the role of elders and so that's one role that a woman in the Bible would not be in, in which I personally don't believe women should be if Paul didn't think was appropriate whom I disagree with him do I know more than he did. I don't think so. We often think we do in the 21st century think that we all know more than Paul did. But of course he was caught in the third heaven saw Jesus on several occasions and visions and he heard things so profound that he was unable to repeat them and he was appointed by Christ to speak officially for Christ to the Gentiles. I have a feeling that his opinion would carry a lot more weight with God, then let's save mine or yours or anyone else's. Today, so if Paul felt that it was inappropriate for women to be in the eldership. I agree with him or not. It's not an antiwoman position because the highest positions in the church are still available to women by the way I said being a servant is the greatest position. That's what Jesus himself said something agree with him on that. But more than that pulse of the greatest of the gifts was the gift of prophecy.

Remember, he told the Corinthians seek the best gifts, especially that you may prophesy and Paul made it very clear that women can do that in the church so I mean it's like there's there's like a plethora of wonderful ministries that men and women both could have. There's only one thing, as far as I know that Paul said he didn't put women into that position. It was the pastor. The passion of the church is an elder locally answered okay will thank you very much for your call. God bless you Alexi. Also in mass in message or two for Massachusetts Gen. hi Lexi, welcome to your shoulder though. Wake up.

If you live by the click of the night and that my question even though you were talking about that the people didn't know the Lord God from the beginning that this creature and extended, and Jean being who were electric or facial… If you know what I would need to be taken and your goal. Do you know and learn what law she knew what time green and clean animals like you wish you and you know the question is not electric blue plot the above. No level or other boat. You will what's on the wall why she often went and called the gospel. Might you make a document for the review. The doctrinal human old-school duty was given the school.

In view of the God effective scale with your accumulation.

Okay, sure. Well, you know, the fact that some things that we later find in the law of Moses were either culturally or instinctively or revealed to to be known to people before Moses does not tell us that the 613 commandments that belong to the Torah were known by them. Let me just say that Adam. We don't know if Adam offered sacrifices. He probably did we know that Abel did. But Abel was a prophet. Jesus says in Luke chapter 11.

Abel was a prophet and therefore he God could've revealed to him and to his brother and to his family that sacrifices were expected to be made. Knowing this would not be the same as knowing the whole law because even the pagan religions new that sacrifices had to be made every pagan religion actually offered sacrifices so the offering of sacrifices was a universally known thing, but certainly there were many other things. And later in the law that were not universally so I think the God you know.

He told people before the time of Moses certain things he wanted them to do. It's not the same thing as saying they had the whole law given to them that no one knew the difference in clean and unclean animals. And again, this would have to do with the for offered sacrifices, which suggested to. There was already a designation that God had made between animals were clean and unclean and he must've made that known either to Noah or to people before know, possibly as far back as able because Abel offered a shape which the clean animal.

We don't know if he was aware that certain other animals were clean or unclean. But we do know that by the time of Noah, which was 10 generations after Adam.

That there is at least the knowledge that some animals make legitimate sacrifices and others do not. Once again, having that kind of knowledge doesn't necessarily tell you much of anything about you know how much of the law. Otherwise was known so I don't family the law of Moses was given at Mount Sinai, and it included some of the same things that people already knew. For example, Judah in Genesis knew and interpersonally. His whole culture that was not a it was not a Jewish culture. He was living in the Toronto Jewish culture. He was the first Jew needing any kids yet so he he lived in the pagan world.

He married a woman and when his son died childless, you know the next one in line was supposed to marry the widow that later became part of the law, but it was already a social practice currently longer for the law. I think about what you're asking. There are solid and why did he ask God for wisdom rather than asking to go to see God face to face. I'm not sure but I think it's probably because he was wise enough to know that God had a job for him to do and he wanted to do well is a very young man, he probably assumed that God's plan for him had many years ahead of it. So he just prayed that he could do well. I think we should do the same thing we want to see God to but before we do. We want to fulfill his purpose wisely decided to take a break. Appreciate your call listening to the narrow pathway of another half-hour coming up.

Don't go away. Our website is the narrow path.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds again to nearly is the path that leads to life into the narrow Steve Grant has nothing to me today that everything to give you the radio show is over. Go to the narrow path.com you can study, learn and enjoy the three topical audio teachings blog articles teachings and archives of the narrow path radiance and thank you for supporting the listeners to put it near the path to Steve Grant when the narrow path.com test. We are live for another half-hour taking calls. If you have question about the Bible or about the Christian faith will be glad to talk to about those. If you see things differently than most. On balance, it may do that as well. The number to call is 8448. I'll start over vehemently to say this, there are couple of lines open in case you're wondering the numbers 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 all right, we talked next to Frank from North Texas hi Frank, what the narrow Catholics are telling Steve are you doing good thank you for everything you do and you certainly don't be a long time not here nor Should we get you twice today. We get you live it for 4 PM and 4 AM and eight show and I believe it was yesterday listening to the 4 o'clock in the morning I go to work pretty early and a guy ask a question about whether it didn't hear everything felt he ask a question about across and it weathered the crucifixion and there is is yeah I let me ask you explain what what what I work across it. If not I'll to me. I know there's no strength in it if it's a memory for me at something I can remember the good things that Jesus Christ done for me in and everybody else and it's it's a reminder, more than anything else. I don't I don't show it off. I don't yet you know what it's it's it's it's for me. If not somebody else and I think we have a chronic we have across our backyard to an existing think there glad my answer didn't sinning against that all Christians are crucifixes or crucifix, is a Roman Catholic item that has a second unit I has Jesus on the cross and actually has a little statuette of Jesus hanging on the cross and I was asked if that's making a graven image if that's if that's an idle. I said well it it may be for some people it doesn't have to be.

But I said it and so I think the way I understand some practices of some Roman Catholics. They do seem to treat it somewhat like an idle, it seems to me, but probably not all of them do so would be metaphors in the heart. That's my passion. Okay, I thought that's what I heard it was 4 o'clock in the morning. It was a little bit on them a big truck, truck driver, it was sometimes because I don't make myself clear and for the morning sleep down pretty much the same Emporium is headed for clock again brother and I and again thanks for. Thank you. Help me along with my Jesus sure Frank, thank you for your call unless you fight okay. Our next Carter's promise from Sacramento hi promise welcome to the narrow Catholics are calling hello Steve, I'm well, thank you, are you kneeling your radio down because it is making noise that I know you can't hear me because it is the radio on in the background or Dodgers it off right now.

Okay good.

Go ahead yet. I know God bless you do that with you here with Roland and appreciate that I have a question equal what you think about the government or people in authority. Being able to read people's mind or inject what you think about manipulation in the Bible. According to the Bible manipulation and what the government could could interject your mind, what does the Bible say about that.

I I've heard I've had people come up to me and tell me that they are quite convinced that the government is transmitting thoughts into their heads, forgive his colleagues is called mind control that might have another more technical name and they've been explained to me the phenomena, and of course I have no way of knowing I I don't know what technology can or cannot do. There was a time that I would've if I lived 200 years ago if you told me that I be talking to tens of thousands of people across the country from my living room for my office. I would say that's impossible. You know, I don't know technology is just amazing so I don't know what they can and cannot do. I have to say I have my doubts that they can but I meant that I profess ignorance about that okay I'm starting it interject thoughts in your mind as far it is that it is not okay a sword. The Bible is concerned, well, you know, people put thoughts in your mind all the time whenever they speak to you, you know, whenever someone asked me a question I asked the question that puts thoughts in their mind they didn't have the before, but we are responsible to judge everything that comes to mind because some things are from the enemy and some things are from God, and some things are just people's opinions and we, the Bible says prove all things, and hold fast what is good. Now I don't know of any technote technology the government has to put direct thoughts in our minds but if they did that be very intrusive to be sure but it wouldn't mean that I wouldn't have the same obligation to test it and to reject what is untrue, it might be that I have a time getting away from you North if somebody's test same things in her lecture hall that I disagree with or that I find offensive. I get up and leave that unsolicited but if there transmitted directly to my brain be considerably more taxing on my patients. But the point is whoever puts things in your mind, so that someone talking to you, or a book you're reading or or you if the government can transmit thoughts directly to that doesn't change the fact that you are person with responsibility to monitor and somewhat control your thoughts. And although you can't control everything you think you can certainly reject the validity of things that you know are wrong. That is to say you can't always make bad thoughts go away just because you like them to. On the other hand, if the bad thoughts are being introduced from outside and you are not agreeable to them is tormenting as that would be to you, that would still make you not responsible for them. You're not responsible for what goes into your ears. Unless of course you're making the choice for to going to select your eyes. If something awful anymore happens before your eyes, your ear in the bank and some convinced shoots people up. You're not responsible for having seen that you would certainly be responsible for your for your assessment of the morally but for seen it.

Not so now. If you are on the other hand, deliberately focus your eyes on things that you know are sinful in order to enjoy them that be a different story. But that's you know if if the government were putting thoughts in your mind. I'm assuming they would not be good thoughts are true thoughts. Then I would say that a person should recognize it, those thoughts are not to be proved and should reject them and that doesn't mean they go away regiment lambing away. I wish we could make that thoughts go away since we wanted to, but what we can't but we still bear responsibility only for for what we choose, and therefore, if a thought comes my head. That's one that I know I should not think or do. I can choose not to do it anyway.

That's as much as I could say about that. I don't know much about the government's ill secret things they're doing that. I have heard people tell me that's going on and I just have no way to confirm or disconfirm that Russell and Fort Worth, Texas. Welcome to the narrow path. Things are going hi, I really hear you on site about that.

I can hear you now, Lord, that heartbreaking story about her gait. He was given her trouble and appreciate your answer and I don't think I disagreed with anything that you told her, but there was something I want you to clarify, I think at some point during your answer you said possibly that day. He can't help but be gay is that that writing can you elaborate on that sure yeah I mean you can't help point you to be tempted with the temptations come from the enemy, and this is that your tempted with things that are other people are not tempted with. For example, some people tested are tempted to get high on drugs. I've never felt that temptation. Some people are tempted to get drunk. I've never should have the slightest temptation to ever some people are tempted to gamble again.

I'm not interested. Some people have temptations that I don't have. I have temptations probably that they don't have now. I've never been tempted to sexually intact and I'm repulsed by guided same-sex activities, but some people are tempted with that and you know when we call a person gay. I guess you have to ask ourselves what we mean by that. If we mean somebody who's sleeping with someone of the same sex. Let's that's a fornicator that's a fornicator when you sleep with somebody who's not your legitimate husband or wife, then your fornicating and that is that's a send that no know what the Bible says no fornicator will inherit the kingdom of God. So that's obviously absolute not okay. However, if a person's temptation happens to be toward people of the same sex.

Just like a normal person's temptations are toward the opposite sex.

I don't suppose the person been tempted to the same-sex is any more immoral or anymore responsible for those temptations. Then a person is tempted to the same-sex marriage opposite sex.

I mean if a married man is tempted by his neighbor's wife.

Well that's that's not homosexual but it's sin.

It's a temptation, but if he doesn't agree to that temptation. If he rejects it and he doesn't act out on it doesn't allow himself to dwell on it will then that temptation is just that a temptations not sent.

Likewise, if somebody's temptation is toward the same-sex. That's something they cannot legitimately exercise and if they if they reject it, and they'd acted out then they're not sitting by having a tempted Jesus was tempted in all points like we are. But he didn't sin, we skinny we have to know that temptation is not sin. Temptation is the allurement to sin and it comes from the enemy. If we if we take responsibility for temptations that we don't desire were to be feeling condemnation of things that we are not responsible for so that's that's my thought mean if a person is gay. If that simply means they have no attraction to the opposite sex, but they do have an attraction to same-sex well who knows why that is but in many cases they wish it wasn't so sign over not messily choosing it.

It's not missing their fault to be tempted by something they don't want some anyway that's that's my thought. But if they are acting it out. Then of course the fornicators and that is a moral clarification. I was looking for understand what you're saying. So to say that he can't help but be gay.

I guess your Sandy can't help being attempted in that way dented meeting Gaming semi doesn't gaming that some is oriented toward sexual desire toward the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex. I think that's that's how we understand the workday, so I I don't think that she a lot of some people think that people are born gay. I personally don't believe that. But but I do believe that a lot of people are gay because of things that happen to them when they were very young, things they didn't have a choice about molestation and trauma and things like that often are in the background of people who are adult homosexuals and they and some of these people you know from the time that's began. They've always been interested in the same and in the same-sex, not the opposite sex and which is unusual. It's very rare. Only what 3% of the population claim to have that so maybe it's a sad disadvantage. They have, and many of them wish they didn't have it.

Some of committed suicide because they were so tormented by yard.

I wouldn't hold them responsible for something to happen to them as a child that bent them a certain way, but I would hold everyone responsible for their sexual actions because those are matter of choice. Okay I think that's a good question thank you. All right, she thinks your call. Dominique from Massachusetts are third caller today for Massachusetts. That's wonderful, hi I read your in your your HD thing about divorce and remarriage on your website and I'm sorry but I really didn't understand what you know some of it but basically my question is, divorce and remarriage of forgivable well that's with that whole thing is exploring there's lots of different situations. Sometimes it's a sin. Sometimes it's not. It always involves sin, but it might be your partner sin. Not yours. There's never a divorce without sin.

But there are innocent parties in a divorce. Both parties are guilty if they both agree to the divorce but the majority of divorces happen against the will of one part partner and it strictly is strictly the sin of their of their department of their spouse because they themselves want to keep the marriage. They don't want the divorce but their spouse forces so it's a sin it's not always your sin if you try to save the marriage spouse just won't let you because their darkest day different is no sin and that now in in cases were that happens I believe the Bible indicates that mostly this the the innocent party would be at some point free to remarry now here's why there are in the New Testament, apparently to grounds for divorce that are recognized as you know valid one is if your spouse commits adultery or fornication.

Jesus said in the other is, as Paul said, if you've got an unbelieving spouse that the parts won't stay in the marriage and is not pleased to dwell with you. He says in the brother or sister. Many of the innocent party in this case is not under bondage.

If you're not found in the marriage and even if nonparties abusive well many times in most marriages abuse writing about. Most marriages I don't know that there's there different situations.

Sometimes abuse includes sexual sin and sometimes it does not and and there are very many marriages where there's been some measure of what we could call abuse in the sense that what one party or the other does not love and cherish their spouse the way they pledge to do so when they got married there. It's not supposed to abuse anybody but if somebody says what about you abuse.

Does that mean physical abuse, verbal and Emotional Abuse Ln., Salida like emotional and verbal well then there's.

It seems to me that there are people in the world who cannot handle verbal or emotional abuse, in which case I decide or even not Christians are not for strong Christians because the Bible says you should be able to love those who abuse you love those who persecute you, bless those who curse you. This is the norm for Christian behavior.

So I'm either there is a people who are not Christians and don't don't follow the norms of Christian behavior or they may be some kind of a Christian, but there might really really immature. Any mature Christian should be able to endure the snow and snow is expected to enjoy it. I will say this I suffered what I would consider to be abuse in a marriage previously, I did. I was not an abuse myself but the I was married to an abuser is not physical is certainly verbal and maybe even emotional, but I and I never whined about to marriages, you know you just you don't always get what you think you're get you know now you both of those in both those things make life very difficult, but so does living in this world with another human being. Anyway meters there many men and women who are not abused by the spouses still find it hard to live with them because they find them unattractive or because they have temptations outside the marriage or because you know they're not fed well they're not provided well for whatever you know me and it makes it very difficult, but that those are not grounds for divorce. Now if somebody is mean to you verbally. I don't think that's grounds for divorce either. Now they start hitting you and it starts looking dangerous, like your life is in danger. I don't see any reason why a person without seeking a divorce might still find a place of safety.

I think every woman who's in danger of physical abuse genuinely some maybe imagine they are and have never been struck but if there's a genuine threat. I think every woman who's in that situation should find a safe house to go to. Preferably her parents or some other friends so that she will not just stay in the home and get beaten up and maybe killed. I don't think that's I don't think were required to stay in the house of somebody who doesn't allow you to stay in house safely, but at the same time I don't I don't recommend divorce. In those cases I recommend at least not immediately. I would recommend that a woman who leaves her abusive husband should stay single. Unless, of course, her husband, then divorces her or cheats on her or something like that in which case I think she has grounds to go further and actually get a divorce but yellow but basically kind out into is like so say you are unaware of everything that the Bible really said about the bulleted you do you get divorced you don't because the wife is like verbally, emotionally abusive and at one point actually used to throw things like bite ex-wife you will think that me and she could make me laugh like she would cut her chin and be like, and I know you want to hit me and I never did you know I mean like I never did. And then when we had our son, she would like to get mad at me. She take on foot go down dedicate to it 50s for like three or four days. When the call wouldn't do nothing and I called the police left, and they will like you do anything unless you're going unless you are and then I what we were seeking counseling quit and then again, I cannot let go, let me just talking to stop you here because among our listeners. There are 10,000 people who have a long story about why their marriage failed and I know they're all very very important to them, but we don't have much time or near the end of the program to say you're wondering, I'm going to assume that you tell me that you got a divorce and he remarried and now you're wondering if it's okay that your second annual okay as it seems to me it seems to me that by Paul's description of an unbeliever who refuses to live with you. Your ex-wife as you described her is one who doesn't want to live if he is a wife. She was with you as a is arrival or an opponent is not the same thing as being a wife, a wife and husband are in a partnership and up and a spouse who doesn't want to be in partnership is an innocent saying I don't want to be in this marriage, and as they may not go away, but they don't want to be of spouse. So I would say that would that would fit in the category of one who is not content to dwell with you as a spouse.

So now you weren't a Christian at the time of the divorce, Emerson Catholic, but I really would like. Now I okay okay well at the same time it seems to me that a lot of the things happen to people before their Christians and the and and they get deserted and I don't think that those fit into the category that Jesus was talking about from the divorce he was talking to someone of the same faith as yourself.

We know that because Paul says so and enforced within seven Paul tells us in verses 10 and 11 that Jesus teaching is for people of the same faith were married to each other, whereas verses 12 to 15 harbor people who are opposite faith or maybe two different rules apply. But anyway, I what what is your ex-wife done since did she remarry.

I know she she's been living with the same guy float. Gosh may be working with and she's getting a CSU kid from okay, then shared that she's okay. I had to stop because were really at a time, but she's fornicating and that puts you in the category Jesus described as one whose wife is fornicating and therefore your you're not bound to her. It seems to me, as I understand Scripture. Anyway, I'm I'm sorry can't say more. It's very company but you might my lecture. My my lectures on that and my paper that you say read deals with adding fairly completely the Santa Barbara from Michigan whenever couple minutes left. Barbara hi Jan and I know and and the people and put in the commitment. Okay.

Well, the Bible does say that the dead know nothing, but it does not teach that the dead know nothing that might sound like a contradiction, but it's there's a difference.

Sometimes the Bible says things that it does not want first to affirm, for example, the Bible says that the devil said to Eve, you will not surely die. Now God said she would and the devil said she did not.

The Bible says that it's in the Bible. Those words are in the Bible but the Bible is not teaching that we should trust that okay and others.

The Bible records things by people who we are not supposed to trust.

Ecclesiastes 9 says in verse five for the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing. Okay, that's a verse referring to. But what is this responsibly that was Solomon who wrote this is cataloging the thoughts he had before. What when he's away from God. He left the Lord. The Bible records and in first Kings that he left the Lord and Ecclesiastes tells us that while he was in from the Lord. He was still seeking fulfillment elsewhere and he tried all kinds of things he tried alcohol, parties, women, literature, music. He tried everything and nothing really fulfilled them and he tried philosophy and he tells about his journey away from the Lord under the sun that is has he keeps saying in the book of Ecclesiastes and in that context, he says in chapter 9 verse 14, I considered all this in my heart.

Okay what I considered this. This is what I thought I thought and I would've said for the living know that they will die. But the dead know nothing. It is that was his conception of the of the truth at the time when he was away from God is not telling us that he was right. He's not telling us that he was a good place and that you should trust it is his musings at that time so the Bible does contain that statement, but it doesn't teach us that as a matter fact he later talks about the spirit goes upward when a man dies, so he had all kinds of reading Ecclesiastes is listening to somebody give their testimony if they say you know I was into the new age of five is a Christian and I thought this might not. This is my thought that not say that you should believe those things are just telling you what they thought they were away from God and that's what Solomon is doing and Ecclesiastes mimes I'm out of time and I hope that helps you.

You're listening to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg where listener supported. You can write to us at the narrow path, PO Box 1730 macula CA 92593 or go to our website.

The narrow path.com thanks for joining us. Let's talk again tomorrow