The Narrow Path 09/23/2026

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour to take your calls if you have questions about the Bible, about the Christian faith, or about the sanity of the host. If you have disagreements with the host and want to disagree, you're welcome to do that here. I'd be glad to do so. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That number once again is 844-484-5737. Again, just as I'm doing every day, I'm reminding our listeners in Michigan that I'll be speaking for a whole week in Michigan the first week of October, beginning with the first actually. If I'm in lots of different locations, I may be coming near you. You can check my itinerary by going to thenarrowpath.com and looking under the tab that says announcements. All right, we're going to talk to Tyler in Dallas, Texas right now. Hi Tyler, welcome to the Narrow Path.
Tyler (Guest): Hey Steve, how are you? I was calling to ask about John 19:26 and 27. I've heard some bizarre things from Catholics saying this is Jesus confirming that Mary is our heavenly mother, universal mother. It's some interesting things that they were saying about this that I don't understand where they got it from. I was wondering your thoughts on that.
Steve Gregg: Well, they get it from their tradition. They certainly don't get it from this passage, though once you have a tradition and you have a doctrinal position, you need to have Bible verses to support it or else nobody will have any reason to believe you. So you find Bible verses which you can say, "This is saying what I'm saying." The words in it maybe could possibly be seen that way, but there's no obvious reason why it would be. In other words, they've already got an idea of what they want it to say before they read it. And then when they read it, they say, "See, that says exactly what I wanted it to say." That's called eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. Exegesis is when you're reading out of the passage what it says. Eisegesis is when you're reading into the passage what you want it to say. What it actually says is that while Jesus was on the cross, verse 25 says, there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, whose name was Salome, Mary the wife of Clopas, another Mary, and Mary Magdalene. There were three Marys and a Salome there. That's because Mary was in fact the most common female name in New Testament times among the Jews. Now, it says when Jesus therefore saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved, which is John, standing by, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son." Now, you'd think if that was all, you'd think he was saying, "Look at me, I'm your son." But no, he meant John is now to be seen as her son. "Woman, behold your son." Then he said to the disciple John, "Behold your mother." So he said, "Mom, John is now going to be like your son. And John, my mom's going to be like your mom." Now, I mean, that's all it would really mean. And John understood it that way. He said from that hour, that disciple took her to his own home. That is, he took the care of her on himself at his own expense, just like an older son would. Now, the Catholics say, "See, this proves that she's all of our mothers and we can talk to her as the Holy Mother. She's our mother and we're all her children." This is something that is far from indicated in the passage. This is Jesus in practically his dying breath making sure his mother had someone to take care of her, a home, a roof over her head. It's obvious that her husband Joseph was now dead and couldn't take care of her. So Jesus, as the oldest son of the family, was committing her care to one of his trusted disciples. Some people say why didn't he just assume that James and John and Jude and Simon, the other sons of Mary, would take care of her? We don't know what their capabilities were. We don't even know if all of them lived to maturity. James and Jude were still alive. We know because they were around in the early church. Whether Simon and Joses, who were also half-brothers of Jesus, had lived to maturity, we don't know. They'd be between 20 and 30 years old at this point and could take care of her, you'd think. But the thing is that these men didn't believe in Jesus at this point. I think he wanted Mary to be in the home of somebody who believes. I'll tell you, I've lived most of my life sharing housing with believers. My parents first, and then when I was single, I shared housing with other guys, Christian guys. Then I was married, and then I was single and lived with Christian people again. I've always lived with Christian people. Then when my kids grew up and my wife left, I had to live with adult children who were not following the Lord at the time. That was really the worst living situation I think I've ever been in, just because I was sharing a home with unbelievers. I know some Christians have to do that all the time. But it sure is great when your home is like-minded and you're living with people who love the Lord like you do and believe like you do. At this point, Mary had other sons, but they weren't believers. Now, they became believers, but they weren't at this time. So Jesus just left her in the care of a trusted disciple so that she'd have a believer providing her housing, which I could see. Now, to say that means all believers are her sons. Well, I've never taken Mary into my home, and she's never looked to me for that kind of help. That's what we read to be the case when Jesus told John that he was to see her as his mother. John took care of her as a son would with his mother. We have to assume that's what Jesus meant. And there's no reason to believe he meant anything else than that. So once the Catholics have come up with the idea that Mary is the mother of everybody, at least all Christians, then they need some kind of support for that biblically, and there isn't any. So they come up with this, but this doesn't say that. If you didn't already have this strange tradition about Mary, you'd never read this passage and say, "Wow, Mary's the mother of all of us," because it doesn't say anything remotely like that. So you say it seems strange that Catholics use it that way. It is strange. To people who are used to exegeting scripture, which are usually Protestants, some Catholics are minded to do so, but if you find someone who really wants to study the scripture and just see what it says and believe it, you're mostly going to be dealing with Protestants. Although Catholics do study the scripture, they all the ones I know study it through a lens which is approved by the Pope and by the church. That's the one thing Protestants don't feel compelled to do. If you're a Protestant studying the scripture, you're not going to ever see that doctrine in there. And that's why it is indeed a strange way to take it. But it's not strange for the Catholics because they do that with lots of scriptures. They have doctrines that are not stated in scripture, but they can find verses that sound like they might support them if you see them a certain way, although if you see them the most natural way, they would not. And that's a case in this instance also.
Tyler (Guest): Do you have time for one more question kind of about more Marian things?
Steve Gregg: One more, go ahead.
Tyler (Guest): Have you heard about a lot of people, Catholics and things, talk about Mary and apparitions and things like this that they've experienced? Do you think those things are potentially demonic in a way?
Steve Gregg: I do. I do. No, I don't think they're made up. I mean, some might be imaginary, but like Fatima, or however you pronounce it, hundreds of people saw the apparition there. And there are others that have been quite attested to by people seeing what they thought was Mary. And it gave great encouragement to Roman Catholics especially to venerate Mary. In fact, some of these appearances of Mary have told the people who saw them, "You need to venerate me. You need to pray to me. You need to make sure you continually say your Hail Marys" and so forth, which of course is something God would never approve of that. It says in 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." John tells us there's lots of spirits out there, and some of them are false spirits, and we need to test them. Well, how in the world do we know how to test them? Well, what do they say? That's basically how you test it. What did it say? In Deuteronomy 13:1-4, Moses told the Israelites that if there arises a prophet or a dreamer of dreams and he shows you a sign and the sign comes to pass, in other words, this prophet has supernatural attestation by a sign that's been given, he says if that prophet says, "Let's go worship other gods that you have not worshipped or known," don't do it. He says the Lord your God is testing you to see if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul. Now, from what I know about God and angels and visions from God, the Holy Spirit, they're all about Jesus. They're all intended to make people more faithful disciples of Jesus. Now, if everybody was a very faithful disciple of Jesus already, then God might send an apparition that told them some additional things in addition to being loyal to Jesus, you should do these other things too, perhaps. But I don't consider that most Roman Catholics I've met are highly conscientious about following the Sermon on the Mount, for example, or following Jesus. And if Mary or any other messenger from heaven would come and give them a message, it would certainly be about that. It would not be about her. The angels themselves did not allow John in Revelation to bow down to them or venerate them when they brought messages from God. Even Peter wouldn't let Cornelius bow down to him when he brought a message from God. So I mean, bowing down to people or angels or whatever, venerating them, is simply not something that a messenger from heaven would encourage. So the devil knows that people are very prone to idolatry, and there's a very large segment of the Christian church that has tendencies that way, to venerate saints, to venerate Mary and so forth. So it would be very much in the devil's interest to encourage that by false apparitions. Remember the Bible does say in 2 Corinthians that Satan himself appears even as an angel of light. So just because the apparition appears to be Mary or even appears to be a good angel, if that were the case, that could still be the devil. And the way you know if it's from God or not is what they say about Jesus. Oh, she said nothing about Jesus? Just about herself? Okay, well, then obviously that's not a messenger from God. And even if she says something about Jesus, if she also encourages people to focus on her and to pray to her, that clearly would not be something that God would approve of. And therefore, it's a message from the other side. I appreciate your call, Tyler. Thanks for joining us. Joe in Detroit, Michigan, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Joe (Guest): Hey Steve, thanks for taking my call. I just recently purchased that book you wrote, Empire of the Risen Son. I look forward to reading that and look forward to meeting you in person when you come into Michigan this month or very soon on your itinerary. I'm asking a question on behalf of my girlfriend who I've recently witnessed to. She is a believer in Christ, but she has reservations about the specific Bible King James. I read the New King James Version. I grew up reading King James, but she said that she believes that King James was a crossdresser or possibly a homosexual that hated women.
Steve Gregg: He was a homosexual from what I've heard. I've heard he was.
Joe (Guest): She believes that he hated women and omitted things to suppress women, especially women at the time that had wealth.
Steve Gregg: No, he didn't do that. King James had nothing to do with the translation of the Bible. He did have some guidelines. There were some words he wanted the translators not to use, but he didn't take anything out of the Bible or have them rephrase whole sentences to eliminate something it said. It wasn't even King James who had the King James Version made. It was made by bishops who dedicated it to King James so that he'd approve of it. But the King James Version uses Greek manuscripts. Those Greek manuscripts are still available. Greek scholars read them all the time. Translators look at them all the time. So I mean, if there was something that King James had left out, these Greek manuscripts go back to centuries before King James was alive, maybe even as much as a thousand years before King James's time. So in other words, King James had no power to change the contents of the Bible. And even if he had wanted to, I am told, I don't know the man, but I've been told through the years that King James was homosexual or bisexual or something like that. I don't know. Maybe he was. I'll allow it. But it's interesting that he didn't allow the King James Version to be changed so as to not condemn homosexuality. The King James Version does condemn homosexuality every time it comes up, both in the Old and the New Testament. So in other words, that should be indication enough that King James was not exercising close editorial control over what was in the Bible because there are things in it that would have condemned him.
Joe (Guest): Just to speak on that, just to ensure if people such as her or other people bring up, "Oh, the King James Bible, I don't read it because I believe blah, blah." What should I say in response to people that they have reservations about the Bible being King James? It's not that he translated it. It was just dedicated to him. It's just a version of the Greek manuscript.
Steve Gregg: Right. He didn't do any translation work of any kind. And by the way, the simple answer is, well, if you don't trust the King James version, get another version. They all say the same thing. They all teach exactly the same doctrines. So get an English Standard Version or get a Legacy Standard Version. I hear that's a good one.
Joe (Guest): Thank you so much for taking my call. I appreciate that was a great answer and thank you once again. I'll see you soon. Thanks Steve.
Steve Gregg: Okay Joe, God bless you man. Bye bye. Okay, Tom in Pangburn, Arkansas. Hi Tom, welcome.
Tom (Guest): Hey Steve, you got it right. Pangburn, a little town outside of Searcy in Arkansas. My question was, I've listened to you now for a couple of years. I haven't heard you address the instrumental music in formal or corporate worship. I know that you talk about adorning, I'm trying to, I've been in the Church of Christ. Of course there's a lot of Church of Christ in Arkansas, but we do a cappella during our worship services, but we all enjoy a good gospel song with instrumental music on the radio and stuff. But tell me why I've been led all my life to have the faith that if it wasn't authorized in the New Testament, then we shouldn't consider it authorized today. I'll take my answer off the air. Thank you Steve.
Steve Gregg: Okay, thank you. Thank you for calling. Well, the Churches of Christ and I have a lot in common. One thing I appreciate about them is they're not dispensational and they're not Calvinist, which are a couple of good things that are not easy to find together in a group, though there are other groups of which that can be said. The Churches of Christ are in different branches. There's the instrumental and the non-instrumental Churches of Christ. Now, the instrumental Churches of Christ, I actually haven't had much to do with them. I've mostly known non-instrumental Church of Christ people, but I'm not of that persuasion. I'm a musician, I believe in music, though I love a cappella congregational singing. Except, I have to say, there was one Church of Christ I went to, a little tiny one in the South, where there were like nine people and none of them could sing, including the guy who was leading the singing, and they were all 80 years old or above, and their voices were not good and strong, and it was a little embarrassing. They didn't have instruments, but their voices were not all that good. But I've been some places where the congregation, well, most places frankly, where there's a sizeable congregation singing a cappella, I'd prefer that to musical accompaniment in most cases. But I'm not a legalist about musical instruments. Now, why do the Church of Christ non-instrumental people believe that it's wrong to worship with musical instruments? Well, you're right. They say, well, it's not authorized. The New Testament doesn't authorize the use of musical instruments. Now, sometimes they will say if you go back to Genesis 4, you'll find that musical instruments were invented by one of the sons of Cain and therefore they come from a corrupt source. Yeah, well, that's not a very good argument because also metal working and sheep herding and living in tents was something that was started by sons of Cain too, in fact, brothers of the guy who made the musical instruments. So I mean, if we're going to say, well, if something came from Cain's line, we can't herd sheep, we can't live in tents, we can't make metal objects, and we can't make musical instruments. Obviously, that's kind of a silly argument. Now, I've pointed out to them that David, of course, who wrote the Psalms, was a musician, played instruments, and in some of the Psalms he tells the singers to play with musical instruments. He tells them to play with skillfully with an instrument of ten strings, play on the harp. In Psalm 150, he talks about using horns and cymbals and loud instruments and things like that. Now, you know, they'll say, yeah, but David did that and Moses' law didn't authorize that. It's true they didn't, but David was a man after God's own heart and we don't find that God criticized him for this. And besides, if we're going to say that we can't really use musical instruments, we're going to have to say the Psalms do not belong in scripture, which is, I'm not sure if Church of Christ people are willing to go that far. The word Psalm in the Greek *psalmos* literally means a poem to be accompanied by stringed instruments. That's what *psalmos* means. The stringed instrument is in the very definition of it. And so if we're not supposed to use stringed instruments, then we shouldn't sing the Psalms. And the fact that the Psalms tell us to do so would mean that we can't count them scripture. We have to count them to be heretical, which is getting strange because frankly, the New Testament writers quoted the Psalms more often than they quoted any other Old Testament book. And many of the lines in the Psalms which David wrote apparently speaking in the first person, they said that's Jesus speaking. So if we're going to get the Psalms out of the Bible, we're going to lose the majority of the arguments from the Old Testament that the New Testament writers used to prove who Jesus is. That doesn't sound very wise or advantageous to us. Now, what about the New Testament? Well, twice Paul says that we should worship God with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. He said that in Ephesians chapter 5, I think it's verse 14, 15, 16 somewhere around there. In the middle of Ephesians 5, he said to do that, and in Colossians 3, he said the same thing, that we need to worship God with psalms. Again, psalm, the Greek word *psalmos* means a poem to be accompanied by stringed instruments. In heaven, we read of the angels or the elders playing harps in heaven. And now harps have strings on them too, and they worship God. We presume the angels in heaven worship kind of perfectly, I mean at least better than any humans do, and they have harps. So I'm not really sure where someone would get the idea. James actually commands us to sing psalms. He says in James chapter 5, is any of you merry? Let him sing psalms. Okay, so we've got two different apostles telling us to sing the psalms. We've got John telling us the angels or the elders or the living creatures, whoever's up there singing in heaven, they have harps. David, who wrote the book most frequently quoted favorably in the New Testament, and which gives us the most messianic prophecies, that book apparently belongs in our Old Testament, at least I've never known a Christian or a Jew who didn't want it there, and yet its very title refers to poems that are to be accompanied by stringed instruments. And then some of them actually say, "Play these instruments, sing to God with these instruments." So it seems to me like the forbidding of musical instruments is a man-made tradition, and it's interesting too because I think Church of Christ people would be quite critical of, say, the Roman Catholics for their man-made traditions that aren't in the Bible. Now, you see what they're doing. They're saying the Bible doesn't specifically tell us to use instruments. Well, they're wrong about that, but even if they were right, so what? A legalist says we can't do anything unless God has specifically told us we can do it. A non-legalist says we can do anything that God has not forbidden. And God certainly never forbids the use of musical instruments like the Church of Christ sometimes do. So I mean, it would be sheer legalism to make a man-made rule and say we've got to do that or else God's not pleased with us. That's just as much a man-made rule as what the Catholics have in their traditions or other denominations, which the Church of Christ would object to, certainly let's just say infant baptism, which is practiced by Methodists and Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Catholics, you know, and Church of Christ would condemn that practice. Why? Because it's not taught in scripture. Well, no, because the opposite is taught in scripture, that's why. It's not just that the Bible doesn't teach us to baptize infants. It says, "Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved. Repent and be baptized." Believing and repenting come before baptism. And so the Bible frankly says how to baptize. It doesn't say how to sing a cappella necessarily, although certainly God would not be opposed to singing a cappella. I think the human voice is the most versatile and beautiful voice when it's well done of any musical instrument. And I think that's what they're saying. They say that when you use musical instruments, you're using machinery, you're using something other than the human voice to praise God. And the Bible says everything, let everything that has breath praise the Lord. Well, a clarinet has breath when you're playing it, so does a trumpet, you know. But of course that's kind of a silly way to look at it. But the point is, they don't have a good biblical case. What they have is a tradition stemming from the founding of their movement, just like all denominations. They say they're not one. But all denominations have traditions that stem from their movement and which they continue to do just because that's the way it's done in their denomination, not because the Bible authorizes it. And I think the non-musical thing is one of those things. I need to take a break. I hope that's helpful to you. We have another half hour coming. Don't go away. We are listener supported. If you'd like to write to us, get in touch with us, our website is thenarrowpath.com. There's lots of resources there, all are free, but you can donate if you wish at thenarrowpath.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds. Don't go away. We highly recommend that you listen to Steve Gregg's 14-lecture series entitled "When Shall These Things Be?" This series addresses topics like the Great Tribulation, Armageddon, the rise of the antichrist, and the 70th week of Daniel. "When Shall These Things Be?" can be downloaded in MP3 format without charge from our website, thenarrowpath.com. Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour taking your calls. The lines are all full, so there's no sense my giving the phone number at this point. But most of the time we have a line open or two and we'd give out the number you can call in. If you want to call in tomorrow, I'm sure we can get to your call, but probably not today if you're not already on the switchboard. So let's talk to George from Covina, California. Hi George, good to hear from you.
George (Guest): Hi, good to hear from you too, Steve. So my question is kind of based in Revelation 12:9 and 10 where Satan and his angels are cast out. And what I understand is that they were cast out of heaven. My first question is, what were they doing in heaven in the first place? And I understand that they were cast out to this earthly realm. And if I remember correctly from reading in your book Empire of the Risen Son, you mentioned something to the effect of us as followers, as believers, are here to do the mop-up job of those that were cast out. So what does that mop-up job look like and are we as a church in the process of doing that mop-up job as you so put it in your book?
Steve Gregg: Sure, sure. Well, as you know, I believe the casting of Satan out of heaven spoken of in Revelation chapter 12, verse 9 occurred at the Cross. You remember that Jesus in John chapter 12, written by the same author by the way as Revelation, in John chapter 12, verse 31, Jesus said, "Now is the judgment of this world. Now shall the prince of this world," meaning Satan, "be cast out." And Jesus, of course, was talking about what was about to happen as he is about to be crucified. So Satan's going to be cast out as Jesus died and rose again. He was cast out of heaven. Now, you say what were the angels of Satan doing in heaven in the first place? Now, I don't know, you know, how much literalism to apply to these visions in Revelation because they're obviously symbolic. They probably have some bearing in some points to literal things. And maybe the devil and his angels were in heaven. We know that in Job, Satan and various hosts of heaven stood before God and Satan made his request to afflict Job. We know that in 1 Kings chapter 22, Micaiah the prophet saw a vision of God in heaven surrounded by a host of attendants. One of them was a lying spirit, which we might consider to be what we'd call a demon. Now, God, of course, has the holy angels with him, but he's also the king and master and lord over all things in the universe. And even Satan can't do things to people without God giving him leave to do them. That's why he had to get leave from God to afflict Job. And that's what was going on in 1 Kings 22 also. The evil spirit wanted to become a lying spirit in Ahab's prophet, but he had to get God's permission for it. So I don't think the Bible would indicate that the Satan and the angels lived in heaven, but I think they had access to heaven to make these kinds of requests and so forth. I don't have much information about that. Nobody does because there's just not much in the Bible about it. But in Revelation 12 specifically, it's a courtroom scene. I don't know if we're talking about a literal kind of a situation or if it's just trying to get across the idea that Satan has been the accuser of the brethren. He's called that in this chapter, as the only time in the Bible he's ever called that, which is in verse 10. It says, "The accuser of our brethren has been cast down, who accused them before our God day and night." He had accused them in the Old Testament. He accused Job, he accused David, he accused everybody who was accused, all the righteous people were accused before God by Satan. Zechariah chapter 3 has a picture of Satan accusing Joshua the high priest in heaven before God. So it sounds like Satan's function allowed him to accuse people like a prosecuting attorney in heaven. And but when Jesus ascended into heaven after dying and rising from the dead and seated at the right hand of God, Satan was cast out. That is a way of saying his case was thrown out of court. It says in Romans chapter 8, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is Christ or God who justifies. Who is he who condemns?" In other words, Satan cannot lay charges against God's people anymore. He can't accuse us before God anymore. When Jesus ascended, Satan was, it's like his case was thrown out of court and Satan was thrown out and, you know, then and it says he had been the accuser or the prosecutor of the brethren, but he had been prosecuting them, but he's thrown out in that role. He can't do that anymore. And so this is what took place at the cross. And we know that's true too by reading Revelation 12 after Satan is cast out. There's a loud voice in heaven immediately in verse 10 that says, "I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, 'Now salvation and strength and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren who accused them before our God day and night has been cast down.'" Now, when Satan was cast out, it was at the same time that salvation came. That was when Jesus died and rose again. And the kingdom of our God and the authority of Christ, remember when Jesus came out of the tomb, he said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me." This all happened at the cross and the resurrection and the ascension. This is that's the event being described here. And Satan as a result lost his standing, as it were, to accuse us before God because Christ covered all those things of which he might otherwise accuse us and we're justified now. Who can bring a charge against us is what Paul says. Now, how do we what's our role in this? Well, it does say when Satan was cast down against the saints, it says they overcame him, that is the saints overcame Satan by the blood of the lamb, by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives even to the death. That's in verse 11 of the same chapter. So there's this warfare going on and the saints ultimately overcome Satan. This has not finished yet. This is what we're involved in now. Now, the mop-up operation that you allude to, I've given the example in my book of David killing Goliath. Before David killed Goliath, the Philistine giant was challenging the Israeli troops every day with this challenge, "Send me your champion. If I kill him, you will be my slaves, you'll be my people's slaves. If he kills me, my people will be your slaves." Which strikes me as a very good way to resolve ongoing warfare. Instead of thousands of people being killed, this way only one person dies and the objectives of the war are gained. I mean, it's a shame for someone to have to die, but if you're going to have a war until somebody submits to someone else, how good would it be to have say one guy dies and that's the end of the war, you know. And that's what the Philistines proposed. Well, of course, David came forward and killed the Philistine. Which means what? It means the Philistines were now the losers, they now were slaves of Israel. But they didn't submit. They ran the other direction in terror. And we read that the Israelites were encouraged when they saw that Goliath had fallen, they pursued the Philistines and all day long until they conquered all of them and spoiled their tents and you know, took what they'd gained through this victory. David had won the victory against the giant, but Israel, David's people, were sent out to enforce that victory. And it wasn't as if once Goliath fell, it was not as if there was some question, "Who's going to win? I wonder if the Philistines will rally themselves and come against us." No, the Philistines had lost. By their own standards, by the terms of their own challenge, they had lost. They just didn't want to submit, so they ran the other way until the Israelites could pursue them. Now, the Bible says that's how the devil stands with us today. Jesus conquered him at the cross. And the demons believe and they tremble. And the Bible says if we resist the devil, he'll flee from us. And we are we come in the authority of Christ as his hands and his feet, as his warriors, as his body, as his agents, and we go to the world and we we capture it as it were, not by human weapons, but by the preaching of the gospel with by the message that there's another king, one Jesus. And when the nations hear this, they sometimes submit. If they don't submit, they nonetheless you know, they nonetheless have no power the demons have no power to keep these people except as much as the people allow them. You know, when we talk about Satan being bound, people say, "Well, he doesn't seem bound, so many people still follow him." Yeah, I mean if you have a cult leader and you hang him on a cross and he's dying there and he can't do anything, but he's still giving orders to his cult members, they might still be foolish enough to follow him. He's the loser here, but they're loyal to him. That's very foolish of them. But he can't control anybody. He can't do anything to resist the kingdom of God. He can try. He can order people to do what he says. And some people in the world, most people in the world, still obey him because they don't know there's a new sheriff in town. They still they're just used to following Satan and they don't realize that Jesus has defeated him and that now there's another king we all should be submitting to. So the message of the gospel is promoting that, that Jesus is the Lord, Jesus is the king. That's the kingdom that's the gospel of the kingdom. And so in proclaiming that gospel, we're winning people out of Satan's kingdom over to God's kingdom. And that's mopping up. That's enforcing the victory. Now, Jesus himself when he was on earth before he died said in Matthew chapter 12 that he had bound the strong man, meaning Satan, and that he was casting out demons as a means of plundering Satan's house. Satan's house is a prison house and he had these people enslaved. And Jesus came and he released the slaves. And he said, "I couldn't do this if I hadn't bound the strong man's house. I'm plundering his house. You can't do that unless you first bind the strong man." So he's saying that he had actually gained you know, victory. He was he had he had the devil pinned. And as a result, he was going and delivering people from Satan's grip. That's what we do too when we preach the gospel. So that's what the mop-up is. The battle in one sense is over because Christ has won and it's never going to be reversed. You know, the devil's not going to ever be able to conquer again. But on the other hand, he can still control people that will let him. He's not literally dead. And so that's what I meant in that.
George (Guest): That's great, Steve. So the gospel, in other words, is the cleanup mop and it's for followers of Jesus to set about the Great Commission.
Steve Gregg: Right, that's what it's about, George. Hey, God bless you man. Good to talk to you again.
George (Guest): You too my brother. Love you man.
Steve Gregg: Thanks for joining us. I love you too. Let's see here. Nikki from Sacramento, California is next. Hi Nikki, welcome.
Nikki (Guest): Hi. I want to say thank you for all of the content you have online. I was just wondering as well in terms of your thoughts or the biblical thoughts on dealing with OCD and anxiety.
Steve Gregg: Well, you know, I don't have any expertise on complicated problems that may involve any you know, anything like brain chemistry or genetics or anything like that. Though I don't think that most of that necessarily is genetic. Now, I don't know, I mean OCD, I don't know why some people have OCD. I don't know if it's it could be a nervous problem, could be a problem in the nervous system. I do not know. I mean, that takes some expertise I don't have. When it comes to anxiety, on the other hand, we have direct statements about that in the Bible. And it seems to me that we should you know, go to the Bible first for that kind of information. When the Bible has information, the Bible doesn't talk about OCD, although the Bible does say that one of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control. And the Bible does say if we walk in the Spirit, we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. So you know, I I you know, I would have to deal case by case with somebody if I was trying to counsel somebody with OCD about that kind of thing. But you should be you should know that you can gain self-control because that's what the fruit of the Spirit is. If the Holy Spirit enables you, and that's of course normal Christianity, that the Holy Spirit enables you to walk the way you're supposed to walk, then self-control is one of those fruits. But as far as anxiety, that's a very universal problem. People get anxious about things. They become I mean, there's scary things, there's worrisome things in the world. And Jesus taught us, of course, not to worry about tomorrow because he said tomorrow will have enough worries of its own and by worrying about it today, we're not going to change anything. And we should just trust God. He said, "If you worry about these things, you're of little faith," he said. All of that, of course, is in Matthew 6. So we need to realize that worrying is not an ailment. It's a behavior that we're forbidden to do. God does not forbid us to get the flu. God didn't forbid anyone from you know, having high blood pressure. I mean, those are things you can't do anything about. Those are physiological things. But the Bible everywhere talks about anxiety as something that's a mental behavior or a choice. And I consider mental behavior to be choices. I realize that some people think mental is more like a scientific category and that's what psychology and psychiatry assume to be the case, that these are called sciences of mental health, mental health sciences. But the Bible doesn't treat anxiety as if it is a disease. Now, no doubt there are people who have you know, more nervous temperaments or whatever that may be, again, their native nervous system. But everybody, regardless of what their natural kit is that they were given psychologically, is expected to be able to do what the Bible commands you to do. And if you can't do it naturally, of course, then you have the Holy Spirit if you're a Christian. Now, I realize a lot of Christians call themselves Christians but they know nothing about the work of the Holy Spirit in their life. They've never never found the fruit of the Spirit to be produced in their life. Maybe they've never even been taught that the Holy Spirit is the one who's supposed to make make it possible for you to succeed in all things that God has commanded you to do. In which case they need to probably learn something about that because that's more fundamental than what I'm talking about. When it comes to anxiety, again, Jesus told us not to be anxious. But Paul also said this, and this is very famous, in Philippians 4:6 and 7. "Be anxious for nothing." That means don't worry about anything. "But in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God and the peace of God which surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." And I think this is very similar to what Peter had in mind when he said, "Casting all your cares or your worries on him for he cares for you." You cast your cares on God and then let him worry for you. And well how do you do that? Well, the way that Paul said. Instead of being anxious, by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving you make your request known to God. In other words, you say, "God, I'm worried about this." And by the way, getting worried isn't the sin. It's living worried. When you when you're feeling worry, that's when you need to respond one way or the other. If you don't respond properly, you just live in anxiety and fretting and worry, which is a sin. But when you are worried, you're supposed to put that away by praying. And not just praying. I've heard people who are into the mental health issues say, "Well you can't just give out Bible verses like aspirin," you know. True, that's true. I wouldn't wish to give this Bible verse out just like an aspirin. This Bible verse is a part of the whole counsel of God. It it's it's it's a puzzle piece that fits with the rest of the puzzle pieces of what the Bible says. In other words, you know you're supposed to trust God. You know you're supposed to not fear for your life, that you shouldn't be afraid of those who can kill the body and can do no more. You don't have to worry about tomorrow. You don't have to worry about whether God will feed you because he'll either feed you or he'll let you die and that's all better. Paul said to depart and be with the Lord is better. There's a whole panoply of teaching that's related to this in scripture. So I'm not just handing out one verse like a vitamin pill or like an aspirin pill to say, "Here, take two of these and you'll be fine." No, no. It's the truth of the scripture. Not a Bible verse. It's the truth in that verse as it as it fits into the whole pattern with the all the truth of the scripture that God is on your side. God is more powerful than all circumstances and than all your enemies and everyone who's angry at you or would hurt you. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. He has no trouble providing for you. The angel of the Lord encamps round about those who fear him and delivers them. I mean, these are all parts of the biblical truth. So when he says, "Don't worry," well he doesn't just in a vacuum say, "Hey, stop worrying." You don't worry because you have a a comprehensive relationship with God based on faith and and trust. And and so when you're feeling worried, that relationship of trust leads you to pray, to speak to your Father, and make your request known to him and to give thanks to him. By the way, giving thanks is a long lost art. It's amazing what thanksgiving will do to a person's mood if they do it sincerely. You know, I mean the Bible has a whole a whole you know, a lot of teaching about your spiritual life, this being one of them. So in other words, while I can't say much about OCD because the Bible doesn't address it directly, there are a lot of there are a lot of things about anxiety. Now in our day, of course, a lot of people with anxiety take some kind of an anti-anxiety drug, which I I'm not I'm not much in favor of that. When I say I'm not much in favor of that, I'll tell you this. The Bible gives us instructions about how to how to how to do the right thing. Some Christians don't know how to do that or they don't do it well and they resort to something else. Now I don't think we're supposed to do that, though on the other hand if you're not if you're not doing what the Bible says about it, probably it may be good to do something else. That is, if you're I don't know, if let's just say you have fits of rage, a different kind of problem. And the Bible tells you not to do that, to put away all anger and wrath and so forth. Don't let the sun go down on your wrath. But you don't do that. You you don't obey the Bible. Well, you may be a dangerous person then if you don't do it. Maybe they someone should give you a you know, a padded cell. Now a padded cell is not God's solution to an anger problem. There's a spiritual solution to that, but if you can't avail yourself of that, perhaps a padded cell is better than nothing, better than going out and killing people. And likewise with anxiety, perhaps you know, if you not if you can't trust God, maybe that's a maybe that's an indicator that you don't know God. And I don't mean to insult anybody. It's just that if I couldn't trust God, I'd have to wonder do I know who even God is? How could you know him and not trust him if you know him? I remember once when I didn't have any money and I was worried about it because I've worried about things too in my life. I'm not perfect in faith. But I was a little worried about bills that were coming up. And I remember I felt like God spoke to my heart from scripture where I just felt like God said or Jesus said the Holy Spirit said to me, "Well do you have a Father or don't you?" And I'll tell you, just reminding me that I do have a Father just made me not worry anymore. Jesus remember said, "Don't worry, your Father knows that you have need of these things." Well, I just need to be reminded of that sometimes. But if you remind me of that and I'm still going to worry, then I might not know that I have a Father. I might know it as a theological point. I might not be an atheist, but I might not really know God either. And so I would say if a person is continually anxious and they and they don't know how to cast their cares on him, and you know they're praying and so forth but it's not you know they're still anxious, I think someone just needs to get to know God somehow better. And and there could be any number of things. I can't diagnose all that on on this call. But I believe that a proper relationship with God obedient to his instructions will lead to a sound mind. God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of love and and peace and of a sound mind. And so I do believe it's a spiritual answer. Now whenever I give these answers, I've got Christian mental health professionals write to me and say, "Stay off this subject. You don't know what you're talking about. Stay with the Bible." I am staying with the Bible. If they would do the same thing, they might give better advice. But I'm not ashamed to give advice from the word of God, even if it's considered to be naive. I've been through many crises myself and I've been stable, emotionally stable through all of them. And it's not because I'm a stable guy, it's because I've practiced what the Bible says about these things. A woman who went to a lot of counselors asked me once, "Where do you go for counsel when you need it?" And I couldn't think of an answer because I'd never been to anyone for counsel. I just go to the word of God. The word of God is my counselor. And I'm not saying we never need counsel from other people. I'm just saying that the Christian norm is to have such a relationship with God and such a trust in God and such a resignation to God and such an obedience to what God says to do that, you know, it's it makes you stable. It keeps you stable. That's how God intends for people to be and in the Bible we have all things necessary for life and godliness, so it's simply a matter of applying what God says I think. Now I have a series of lectures called Biblical Counsel for a Change where I talk about psychology, I talk about psychiatry, I talk about these issues. And I would suggest perhaps that somebody who's seen a counselor, somebody who's got mood problems or behavior problems, you might want to go to thenarrowpath.com and look under topical lectures. thenarrowpath.com under topical lectures. There's a series there called Biblical Counsel for a Change. And you know I I think I could I could do better to direct you there than to try to give some kind of a complete answer or to try to give full counsel here. Not that I'm qualified to give full counsel even if we had hours together, but I do think there are certainly things I could point you to in scripture that would help in these areas and in those lectures I do. So let me encourage you to check those out. I appreciate your call. Let's see do we have time for another? We could try Mark in Windham, Maine. Mark welcome, we only have a couple minutes, go ahead.
Mark (Guest): Hey Steve, I was just curious, what's your thoughts about the updated version of the NIV with the gender-neutral? I don't seem to like it.
Steve Gregg: Gotcha. Well first of all, I'm not woke and so there'd be no reason for me to think it's a great idea to change the Bible to fit with the pronoun fad. You know, I realize there are some people I actually think that a couple of generations of women have been conditioned to dislike men. So when you use male pronouns for God or call him Father, some of these people you know are traumatized by that. Well, that's where they need to be renewed in their mind. God revealed himself as a Father and even in his day there were there were abusive fathers, but he wasn't one of them. He wasn't afraid that by calling himself Father that somehow the abusive fathers would give him a bad name. He knew that everyone knows what a father ought to be and that he is a perfect example of one. And there's nothing to be ashamed of his masculine pronouns. He wasn't ashamed. If he's not, I'm not. And if I wanted to change the Bible, I'd have to make sure that I'm not compromising something fairly essential that was in the original. I'm not for it. I'm against these gender-neutral Bibles. I appreciate your call. I'm out of time. You've been listening to the Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.