The Narrow Path 09/17/2026

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we are live for an hour each weekday afternoon to take your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we'd be glad to talk to you about those on the air. If you see things differently from the host and want to express a different opinion or balance comment, we welcome that too. At the moment our lines are full, but that is not always the case. In the course of this hour, there will be lines opening up, which means becoming available to you. So if you'll randomly call throughout the next hour, especially in the earlier portions of the hour, you have better chance of getting on. The number is 844-484-5737. Just have that written down nearby and call randomly during the hour. We hope you'll get through. 844-484-5737. Again, I want our Southern California listeners who are men to know that we have a men's Bible study in Temecula on Saturday morning. This only happens once a month, on the third Saturday of the month, 8 o'clock in the morning in Temecula. If you'd like to join us, there is information at our website about that at thenarrowpath.com under announcements. Similarly, under announcements at the same website, we have our Michigan itinerary. I'll be speaking in Michigan for about a week, different locations throughout the state beginning the first of October. If you're in Michigan, check that out at our website, thenarrowpath.com. Under announcements you'll see where those talks are going to be given. A little while later than that in November, I'll be going into Arizona and I'll be speaking I think for about a week there also. We don't have all of those days filled in yet, I don't think, so we have several. There may be some who may wish to still schedule something or set something up. You can check out our schedule as it exists right now at the website thenarrowpath.com under announcements. And now we'll go to the phones and talk to Assefa from Minnesota. Hello Assefa, welcome.
Assefa: Hi, thanks for having my question. My question is in regard to the original sin. God removed Adam and Eve from the garden after they ate from the tree of knowledge before they ate from the tree of life. What prevented them from eating from the tree of life up to that point because God instructed only not to eat from the tree of knowledge? So what prevented them not to eat from the tree of life?
Steve Gregg: Well, you've actually, thank you for the question. It actually raises an interesting point because sometimes people wonder how long did Adam and Eve live before they fell. Did they live for some weeks, months, or years? And I think there's a couple of indicators that they fell and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which they were forbidden to eat, rather early, possibly within days after they were created. I say that for, well, there's two reasons. One is that Eve did not become pregnant until after they fell. We read about that in Genesis 4:1. And it seems strange that if they were alive for very long before they fell that they wouldn't have gotten pregnant since God made them very fertile and also commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. So my impression is that they fell certainly as stated. They fell before they became pregnant. So that would have been very early on they fell. But the other is, as you say, why didn't they eat of the tree of life? I think they would have, given time. In my opinion, the tree of life was a tree that under ideal circumstances they would be able to eat freely from forever and it would prolong their life as they did so. That seems to be what is said. If they eat of the tree of life, they'll live forever. We also see the tree of life in the book of Revelation, in Revelation 22, at the new earth, in the New Jerusalem. That tree of life is there and it bears fruit monthly, which suggests repetition of eating it. If it was just a matter of eating it once and then you have eternal life and that's it, you wouldn't need it bearing fruit every month. But the fact that it does suggests a continual eating of it. Now that's no doubt how they would have done in the Garden of Eden also. Now there's another possibility, and that is that they did eat of the tree of life, but they had to keep eating of it. And that when they sinned God cut them off from it. In which case they might have lived for a while and even eaten of the tree of life for a while, but then God cut them off from it when they sinned and therefore they would not live forever. But the impression we have is that they did not yet eat of the tree of life. And you say what would have prevented them? I don't suppose anything would have prevented them except having time to do so. I mean, they were tending a garden, naming the animals, eating all the trees. Probably they would normally have gotten around to eating of the tree of life too, and probably not after much delay after they were created. But if they fell very quickly before they ate of it, then that would explain why they didn't. But as I said, they might actually have eaten of the tree of life for a while until they were cut off from it, because the continual eating of it would be necessary for continual living. Their being cut off from it meant that they would no longer be able to eat it and therefore they would not live forever. Anyway, it's a thought-provoking question, Assefa, but those are the thoughts I have about it. Did you have any thoughts about it?
Assefa: I was wondering about it in my mind.
Steve Gregg: I'm sorry, your phone's doing strange things. Your voice is not clear to us. Okay, I'm sorry, yeah, there's also noise on your end. Okay, I'm going to just move along but I appreciate your call. Jerry from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Jerry: Hi Steve. I've been listening to you for 30 years. You have more knowledge than anybody in the world that I listen to, and I listen to all the preachers. I listen to you guys and you are good. God has blessed you so much, brother. I'll admit that. I got some bible questions about heaven and hell. And there's about 10 questions and they're only one word. So, first of all about hell, there's a lower hell and a lowest hell. I'm going to ask you where these places are. And there's earth and there's heaven. And then it says there's heavens and heavens above, third heaven, the heaven of heavens and above the heaven of heavens. And I don't know where these places are. Jesus said one time, "Today thou shalt be with me in paradise." So he said that to the thief on the cross with him. So where is paradise? So there's 10 places.
Steve Gregg: Okay, could I ask you something before I answer? What is your interest in this? I mean, is this something that makes a difference? Is this important to you?
Jerry: It's places that I can go to.
Steve Gregg: Well, I don't think we're given a choice of which heaven we go to, for example. The truth is we aren't told very much about the afterlife. Now the word heaven is used a lot in the Bible, but not usually of an afterlife home. Now sometimes, I do believe the Bible does teach that we will go to heaven when we die if we are believers. But it says very little about it and it very seldom speaks about it. The word heaven, most of the times that it appears in the Bible, is talking about the sky, where the birds fly in the heavens, or where the clouds are, or the stars in the heavens. So the heavens just means the region above us and it doesn't usually mean anything about where people go when they die. Now also in the Bible, heaven can refer to where God dwells. God's throne is in the heavens and this is not talking about the sky. This is probably talking about a supernatural spiritual realm which you could not get to in a rocket ship. In fact, it may not be very far away. Paul said that in him we live and move and have our being. He's not very far from us. So the realm that God lives in is perhaps an alternative reality that's not really very far away. Might be parallel to our own. But we don't know that. You said where is it? I don't know. I don't really need to know, but the point is we're not told a lot about it. But heaven of heavens almost certainly is a phrase that means of the various heavens, like the sky where the birds are and the other heavens further out where the stars are, and then of course the other heaven where God dwells. It's probable that that third one is what Paul referred to as the third heavens. He only used the expression one time in 2 Corinthians 12, where he said he was caught up into the third heaven and there's no other indicator that there are three heavens. But we do know that the word heaven is used three different ways and the third way, I would say, is probably in the dwelling place of God and that's probably what he means. And heaven of heavens, meaning there are heavens, but the heaven of them all would be the place where God dwells. I suspect that these terms are interchangeable terms. Paradise is a generic term that means a pleasant place. Actually, in the Persian language, paradise means a pleasure park. And so Eden is referred to as a paradise. The New Jerusalem is a paradise. Heaven, the third heaven, is called a paradise also when Paul's speaking about being caught into the third heaven, he says even into paradise. It's kind of generic, just like if you like tropical places for vacation, you might think Fiji or Tahiti is a paradise. And you could be right because that's a generic expression for a pleasant place. So a lot of this terminology you're talking about is not really that mysterious. There's a place where God dwells, which is heaven. It's probably what is referred to as the third heaven and the heaven of heavens. There are other heavens referred to and they're more frequently referred to, actually, in scripture, which are like I said, the sky, the atmosphere around the earth, the further out heavens, what we might call deep space or outer space. Those are referred to as heaven, but they're not the same heaven where God dwells. God's not living geographically or atmospherically or physically somewhere out further in space. It's a different dimension. But we could go all our lives without knowing that and it wouldn't change anything. So I'm not really sure why we would be too overly concerned with it. But you mention hell and the lowest hell. I don't recall, yeah, I think in the Old Testament talks about the lowest hell somewhere. But hell is Sheol and Sheol is the grave in most cases in the Bible. So it's where people go when they die. Their bodies go into Sheol. They go into the grave. Now the Bible teaches, I believe, the Bible teaches that when saved people die today they go to be with the Lord, that's in heaven, until he comes back here. Then we'll come back with him. Heaven is not desirable to us from the mere standpoint of it's a nice place to be. Heaven is desirable to us because God is there, because Jesus is there. Anyone who ends up in heaven is someone who wants to be with God, wants to be with Jesus. Now the Bible indicates that Jesus is going to come back here. He's going to rule here and we're going to reign with him. So heaven is just kind of the temporary place that we go if we die if we're saved. But it's not where we're going to live forever. We're going to live forever in resurrected bodies on a resurrected planet according to scripture. So a lot of these terms, I don't think we have to parse them too much, but there's a lot of terms that are more or less synonymous. That's how I would answer your question. Thank you for calling and asking it. Allen in Grass Valley, California, welcome to the Narrow Path.
Allen: Hi Steve. So when I first became a Christian, my church basically taught that God has a pretty much black and white view of everything that happens. But when I read scripture like Rahab talking about the spies or David eating the showbread or the disciples plucking the grain or Paul saying that the reason they were persecuting him was because of his belief in the resurrection, it seems to me that the Bible is teaching that God takes into account circumstances and the intent of the heart. Am I misunderstanding these messages?
Steve Gregg: I don't think you're misunderstanding them. If people say God is black and white about things, I think what they mean is God knows what's right and what's wrong. And what's right is really not going to be wrong and what's wrong is not going to be right. There's moral certitude. There's moral absolutes. Now the question of how God reacts when people do things that are wrong or right is another issue. And there are of course gradations of some things. Some things are morally absolute. Other things are more flexible that are not moral issues. The eating of the showbread which David did violated a law, but it was not a moral law. He didn't do something that was morally evil. He did something that violated a ritual law and God has priorities, that human needs come before rituals. That's in fact when Jesus helped people on the Sabbath, that's the point he made. He said the Sabbath was made for man's benefit, not man for the Sabbath's benefit. Now the Jews felt that the ritual of keeping Sabbath was all-important and they shouldn't even help people much if that required labor on the Sabbath day. And Jesus just ignored the fact that it was Sabbath day and did all the same kind of work that he did any other day of the week. And when they criticized him for that, he said listen, this is made, Sabbath wasn't made to keep people in bondage. It was made for their benefit. And that's how rituals are. Sabbath is a ritual. All holy days and holy places and holy ordinances and so forth are rituals. Those are not moral issues. I mean, they're not based on any moral absolute. So David violated a ritual. But he was running for his life. God doesn't want just breaking the rituals. Didn't want them breaking the rituals in those days back, but there were things that could certainly justify it. Same thing with Rahab lying to help the spies escape. Well she was saving human lives and hurting nobody. Sure you shouldn't be telling lies if you can avoid it. You should be an honest person. But there are sometimes when you hurt nobody and you saved lives by doing something. Now I'm not saying we can go ahead and lie whenever we want to if we just think there's a good cause for it, but God obviously didn't hurt Rahab for that. And that's another important thing. Just because God does have ideas of firm ideas of what's right and wrong and they are correct ideas, it doesn't mean he has to be legalistic about it. And many times he's not legalistic. Sometimes he is. But on rare occasion he is. Like when he had a man put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, when he struck down Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire, when he struck down Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit, things like that. I mean, God's, when he struck down Uzzah for touching the ark, those cases when we read them they really stand out on our minds as really strange cases of God just instantly bringing judgment on someone who did something sometimes it might seem like even a minor thing to us. And yet they do stand out because they're so rare. We have to realize that in thousands of years of recorded biblical history, God didn't do that very often and he did it when he felt it was necessary to make an example of somebody when there was a point to be made and people had to get the point strongly. And God certainly has every right to execute a person who does something wrong. After all, everyone's going to die and God has every right to decide when each of us will. So if he says okay, by striking down Ananias and Sapphira in this particular way, I'm going to give a strong example that the church desperately needs not to take me lightly. And so God's not legalistic. Certainly there's right and wrong and we should always want to do always completely what's right. But there are some things which are more, let's just say, what Jesus called weightier matters of the law. To do the weightier matters of the law, Jesus implied, is more necessary than lighter matters of the law, though everyone should hope to keep all the matters of the law. But when something has to be sacrificed for something else, a lot of times a good person will choose the weightier matter to follow and God apparently recognizes that what they're doing is is legitimate in that moment. Anyway, that's what I think about these things. I don't think God is, doesn't have a clear view of black and white morality, but there are some things that are not black and white issues in the sense that some things can be sacrificed for other things that are of more value or more importance to God.
Allen: Thanks. I really appreciate that.
Steve Gregg: All right, brother. Good talking to you. Okay, let's talk to Tim from Wisconsin. Tim, welcome.
Tim: Good afternoon, Steve. The Bible says in the Old Testament and the New Testament that we are not to change, add, subtract, adjust God's word. And if a leader of a church does do that, we are to go to them. And then from there, the next step is you go to the elders. And if that happens, if only one other elder was brought in because the leader pointed myself to another elder, what is an acceptable timeframe to wait to see if there's any reconciliation or restoration regarding the subject?
Steve Gregg: Okay, so somebody you felt added to the word of God. You mean, they changed Luke 4:4 where it says men, Acts 4:4. I apologize, Acts 4:4, I apologize, thank you. So Acts 4:4 where he talks about he was counting the men of to be about 5,000. And the pastor said it says he was adjusting it because there had to be more than 5,000 people there because there were women there that Luke didn't count. And in 5:14, he uses the word men and women in the multitudes. So I figured Luke being an apostle knew exactly what he's talking about when he used the word men and he had a reason why. Is there anything wrong with a pastor saying just going ahead and jump in the gun and said, well, there had to have been more than five so we'll say it was men and women instead of just men?
Steve Gregg: Well, there's certainly no violation of what Luke says there. Luke, I mean, he's giving an opinion. And certainly when Luke says the number of men came to be about 5,000, literally he does just say the number of men. Now men might mean people in some context, but it's not clear whether it does in this case. I personally would frankly agree with him. I think probably he says men, just actually the number of men. Where on another occasion, if he says there's this many men and women, well then that's the total number of people, I guess excluding children. But I mean, so you don't see any violation in changing the word and extrapolating and interpreting to be more than just what Luke was trying to communicate? Well, I hear the pastor in this case trying to explain what he believes Luke is saying, to say I take these words to mean such and such, which they could easily mean. Or maybe they mean something else. Okay, let's say there's two choices. This can be interpreted this way or that way. We don't know which way is proper. But I mean, for a teacher to say I think this is what is meant here, I mean, that's kind of what teachers often are called upon to do to clarify something that may be ambiguous. Now you say but he's adding to the word. No, he doesn't seem to be adding to the word. If he says it says there were 5,000 men and the pastor said, okay, there were 5,000 men but there no doubt women and children too so the number would be larger. That's actually not adding to the word. He's just saying what it says. Now if someone else would say, well, men here means men, women, and children. Well, that's adding to the word. It may be a correct thing. I mean, sometimes the word men might in a certain context take in all people in the setting. But it doesn't say so. So I mean, but let's just say this. One of the views is right. There were either 5,000 men plus women and children, or there were 5,000 people total. Is this an important thing to us to know? I mean, it might even be a round number for all we know. I mean, did he actually count literally 1,000 and then another 5,000? Well, it says about 5,000. Okay, so it's not literal thousand. Well, to me, I don't even see how this would be an issue of concern. I certainly don't see it as an issue of church discipline to call the pastor on it. Now if you came to the pastor and said I think you added to the word of God here and he said okay, you can think that, I don't think I did. Then I'd suggest that would be the end of the matter unless you can prove that he was wrong. But I don't think he can prove he's right and I don't think you could prove he's wrong. So just one of those things that certainly is not the kind of thing to divide a church over. It's not even a very important question. Let's say he's right and there were like 15,000 people. Okay, so the passage mentions 5,000 men and the pastor thinks there's 15,000 people. What in the world difference would it make to us today or even people back then whether the number was literally 5,000 or 15,000? It's actually a very inconsequential statistic. So I think you might be making too much of it and I think you need to give the pastor a break about that. I'm not sure he's even wrong, but even if he is wrong, it's not the kind of thing to get upset about. Anyway, I appreciate your call. Thanks for joining us. You're listening to the Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Check it out. There's all kinds of free resources. You can donate there if you want. We are listener-supported. We have another half hour coming up. Stay tuned and we'll take your calls soon. If truth did exist, would it matter to you? Whom would you consult as an authority on the subject? In a 16-lecture series entitled The Authority of Scripture, Steve Gregg not only thoroughly presents the case for the Bible's authority, but also explains how this truth is to be applied to a believer's daily walk and outlook. The Authority of Scripture 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, although our lines are full again. If you want to try a little later, the number to call is 844-484-5737. And we're going to go back to the phones and talk right now to Nelson in Fort Worth, Texas. Hi Nelson, welcome to the Narrow Path.
Nelson: Yes, I was just wondering if you could tell me anything about the Book of Jasher. Like it's mentioned in the Book of Joshua chapter 10 verse 14. Is there any credibility to the Book of Jasher being renamed, like maybe it might have been a scribe by the name of Jasher that wrote a part in Kings or something? Can you elaborate on that? I'll hang up and listen.
Steve Gregg: All right, thanks for your call. Well, I don't if that is true, that is if Jasher is just the name of a scribe and it really is referring to a book written by, let's say Jeremiah, that belongs to the books of Kings, I suppose it's possible, but on the other hand I don't know how we would ever know that. We don't have a lot of information about it. Now you can go online and buy a copy of the Book of Jasher if you want to, but it's not probably the Book of Jasher mentioned in the Bible. I've studied that a little bit in the past. I don't remember all everything I learned about it, but I certainly learned enough to know that the Book of Jasher is not really in existence today in the form that it would have been around in the days of Joshua. So it's probable that somebody in more recent history wrote a book and called it the Book of Jasher because the Bible mentions a Book of Jasher that is otherwise unknown to us, and that way he could sell books and claim that this is one of the hidden sacred books that was lost since Bible times. That kind of thing is a good marketing gimmick for lots of different things that have come out over the years. I don't believe the Book of Jasher as it was known in the days of Joshua is known to us today. I don't think it's available. But judging from what we are told about it in the Bible, it apparently was a book that had some of the same stories in it that Joshua had and perhaps other books of the Bible too. But then so does the works of Josephus. We have those. They talk about some of the same stories too and such. So I don't really concern myself too much about Jasher, only because we can't first of all, we probably can't find it and if we did find it, we wouldn't know that we had. So it's one of those uncertainties that if it was important, I think it would have been preserved as were the other books of the Bible. That's my my take on it. All right, let's talk to Tyler in Texas, in Dallas, Texas. Hi Tyler.
Tyler: Hey Steve, how are you? Good, thanks. So just talking with some friends again, pondering different things and kind of wanted to get your opinion on it. But one of them was wondering about animals going to heaven and their kind of thinking was, God being all-loving and compassionate and things he would want all his creation there. But it kind of just raised some interesting questions because I'm like, does that mean every animal? Every cockroach and every mosquito? Yeah, and I'm like, if you think about how many rabbits were ever in the world, it's probably trillions of them. Probably need a whole planet for those. The planet of rabbits, yeah. So just kind of wondering your opinion on that or if you've heard things about it or anything like that.
Steve Gregg: Well, certainly people ask that a lot. I've heard it a lot and I have at times wondered about that, especially since some higher animals, especially those that are pets, we become very fond of them and they apparently become fond of us and they seem highly intelligent in many cases. And we think well how could they not have a soul? How could their personalities just be discarded at death and never have another have a future? Yet that's, I mean, that's a sentimental thought we have. There's really nothing in the Bible that suggests that animals that live here and then die are anything more than biological machines. Atheists believe we're all biological machines. I mean, they don't even believe humans have souls, which I believe the Bible refutes that. But it wouldn't be too hard to believe that animals are biological machines and nothing more to it than that. When the machine stops it's dead. But if it's reproduced there's new ones. It's quite a miracle reproduction is. But you're right. I mean, if we're going to say well everything God created, every animal he created, he loves it enough he's not going to send it to hell. They don't deserve to go to hell, so he must be going to take them to heaven. Well he could if he wants to, I suppose. Heaven must be a very, very big place. But actually we're not going to live in heaven. We're going to live on the New Earth. And there probably will be animals there, but I don't know that they will be the same animals that were here. In other words, if I don't know that there will be animals there, some people think that the lion lying down with the goat or whatever in Isaiah speaks of animals in the millennium. I don't believe that's talking about the millennium. I don't believe it's talking about heaven. I don't believe it's talking about the afterlife at all. That's my take. You can listen to my lectures on Isaiah if you see what I think about it. But the thing is that I don't think the Bible tells us that there will be animals in eternity with us in the New Earth. But I guess I'd just be surprised if there aren't any. God made such an abundance of them in this earth and the New Earth I think is like a restoration of the original pristine creation. The fact that God made so many different kinds of animals means that he loves apparently the variety. And I do too. I'm an animal lover. So I could see how God would. There's something of his nature in all of us. And so that being so, I guess I'd just be surprised if when this world is over and he makes the New Earth he didn't put a lot of animals in it. He probably will. I think. But I don't think there's anything to suggest that let's just say dogs or horses or cats or rabbits that might be in the new world would necessarily be resurrected versions of the ones that lived here. I think but who am I? I don't know. I mean, there's nothing in the Bible to tell us. So this is just an educated guess and it could be wrong. But no, I don't think there's anything to encourage us that our pets are going to heaven or any animals are necessarily. All right, thanks for your call. We're going to talk next to Gil in Long Island, New York. Hi Gil.
Gil: Hey Steve, I just want to say I had a dream that I was calling your show and that I was talking about the screener and I want to tell you he's wonderful. So I was dreaming in a dream that...
Steve Gregg: Now you've said that every time you call but we don't have much time. Do you have a question?
Gil: Okay, my question is in Hebrews chapter 3 verse 12, it says, "See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God." I was wondering if you could expound on that in light of what you was talking about in Hebrews chapter 6 also and chapter 10.
Steve Gregg: Okay, well we weren't talking about Hebrews 6 today but we did talk about Hebrews 10. The writer of Hebrews, like I said, is writing to Jewish people who have come to Christ. They're tempted because of persecution to depart from Christ, go back to Judaism. But the writer sees that as an evil choice. They see it as stabbing Jesus in the back. They see that as disloyalty. The writer sees that as something that disqualifies you to be one of God's people. And so he's writing to those people. At this point the people he's writing to probably are not yet fallen away but this is the temptation they are facing. And he calls in verse 1 of chapter 3, he calls them holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling. Okay, so he's talking to people who are still separated unto God. They're still Christians. But he knows there's a danger that some of them are facing and some have succumbed to. And to those who have not yet succumbed, he says in verse 12, "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God." So he's saying that you who are holy brethren and partakers in the heavenly calling, you could fall away. Beware of that. You don't warn people of dangers that don't exist. Beware of there being an evil heart of unbelief. Okay, how did you become a Christian? By believing. How do you become a non-Christian? By not believing. So if you give up your faith you have an evil heart of unbelief. Why is it evil? Maybe you just think well I'm just confused. Well, if you've made a commitment to Christ, no matter how confused you are, if you turn from him you're disloyal. It's like when you make a marriage vow. Later on you might have some confusion in your marriage and stuff like that, but you still keep your vow. It's an evil thing to break a vow, any vow. And therefore he's saying if you turn from Christ, that's an evil thing. Your heart is evil to make that choice. Now your heart might not be evil just because you're facing some confusion, maybe even some doubts once in a while. You hear an argument that you don't know how to answer and you think whoa, could I be wrong? You know, to have a doubt for a moment or to have confusion for a moment is not a sin in itself. But to make a decision to abandon Christ, that's like if you've got a wife and you're not so sure she's the best wife you could have gotten and you say I guess I'll go looking for another one. That's evil because you made a pledge to her. And so he said you if you depart from the living God, and that by that he means departing from Jesus, from whom to depart is departing from the living God. He said beware of that. Some people apparently were succumbing to that temptation and he's writing to the ones who had not yet done so saying beware of that. That's a danger. After all, if you depart from the living God because you have an evil heart of unfaithfulness to him, there's just no excuse for that. And it is betraying somebody who has never betrayed you. To me, I would not betray somebody that I made a promise to even if they were unkind to me. But if they've been perfectly faithful to me and I betray them, I couldn't live with myself. I'd know myself to be a wicked, wicked man. And I'm afraid a lot of people don't know themselves to be that wicked because they do that kind of thing. They do to their spouses, they get out of other covenants and contracts and don't have a conscience about it. And the same thing is going on when a person who's been baptized, made their pledge to follow Christ, has turned from Christ and God. That is a heinous crime, despicable. I have no respect for anyone who has so little loyalty or so little integrity as to break an oath like that. Neither did the writers of scripture. They're warning against it. It's not a safe thing at all. It's just an evil thing. All right, thanks for joining us. You've been listening to the Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.