The exploration of Genesis 6 unfolds with a fascinating discussion on the identity of the ‘sons of God’ and the implications of angelic or human interactions with the daughters of men. Steve provides a critical analysis of various interpretations, weighing the historical popularity of these views against their scriptural basis. The episode rounds off with a dire look into the world of artificial intelligence and its potential compatibility with religious preaching. Steve shares insights on AI-driven platforms and their prospects in perpetuating theological discussions beyond human lifespans.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 10 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon so that we can have back and forth conversations in real time with you. If you have a telephone and this number and a question on your mind about the Bible or the Christian faith or ministry, concern about something you may have heard here that you don’t think is quite right, we’re always welcome. You’re always welcome. We always welcome you to call in and discuss those things. The number to call is 844-484-5737. One more time. That number is 844-484-5737. And again, I want to make the announcement that this Saturday, being the third Saturday of the month, it’s when we always have our men’s Bible study in Temecula in the morning, once a month, the third Saturday, 8 o’clock in the morning in Temecula, men’s Bible study, if you’re interested and nearby. Also in the evening, once a month, we have a meeting for anybody who wishes to join us in Buena Park, which is in Orange County, California. and we’ll be looking at the book of 2 Peter and Jude this Saturday night. Information about the time and place of those meetings can be found at our website, thenarrowpath.com, thenarrowpath.com, under the tab that says Announcements. Check it out, and if you’re nearby and want to come, we’d be glad to see you there. All right, now our lines are pretty full, so let’s talk to Kola. from Rochester, Michigan. Hello, Cole. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey, Steve. Just wanted to say thank you for everything and appreciate your ministry. And my question is regarding 1 John 5-7. And the thing that I’m interested about is that quote from Cyprian. You’re probably familiar with it where he actually says, I and the Father are one. And again, it is written, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. I just wanted to get your take on that because that kind of leads me to think that there might be some genuineness or some authenticity to that verse in verse 757. What do you think?
SPEAKER 10 :
I actually have not seen Cyprian’s quote, and many of us commentators have not apparently mentioned it because I would have run across it. Did he say the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or did he say the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit?
SPEAKER 06 :
He actually says the Father, the Son.
SPEAKER 11 :
I see.
SPEAKER 06 :
I actually have the quote right in front of me, and it actually says, if I could read it for you, just take a few seconds.
SPEAKER 10 :
Could you give me the reference to Cyprian’s work? Could you give me the reference?
SPEAKER 06 :
Do you know the book? Okay, I actually, I’m sorry, I don’t have the book. I think it has it, but it actually says, He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, that’s so in opposition to Christ. He who gathereth elsewhere, that in the church scatters the church. And here it is. The Lord says, I and the Father are one, and again it is written, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And that’s from 250 A.D.
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay, so it says, of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. Well, that is very close. That’s very close to 1 John 5, 7, but it’s not exactly a quotation. You know, Trinitarianism was fairly, that was, what, your 250-something? Yeah, 250 AD. Yeah, 250. Yeah, so, of course, Trinitarianism had not yet been declared the official doctrine of the church yet. That waited for the councils that came a century later almost. But I know that there were many church fathers whose language was like that of Trinitarianism. So the language of it seems to imply that the idea of it existed, you know, back in those days. And if somebody had a Trinitarian idea, even if they didn’t have 1 John 5, 7 in their Bible, they might use the expression these three are one after saying of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. See, 1 John, of course, it doesn’t say of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit. It just says there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. Right. So it’s hard to know. if he’s actually quoting like an early version of 1 John 5 that had that verse. Now, for our listeners who don’t know why this is even a concern, that verse, 1 John 5, 7, is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament that are available to us today. The earliest manuscripts we have date from the 4th century, so they’d be later than this. And they don’t have that verse, 1 John 5, 7. but it is found in some later manuscripts. So the question is, was it originally in 1 John 5, 7, and those manuscripts we have, which are the earliest that we have, simply are defective and they left it out? Or was it never in the original and the later manuscripts that have it added it because of the Trinitarian leanings of the church at the time later on? Now, most scholars think it was not in the original because of those ancient manuscripts, but as you’re saying, The Cyprian quote comes from almost a century before our oldest manuscripts came into being. And it may, in his own mind, if he is referring to 1 John 5-7, then he obviously had a Bible older than the ones we have available to us in the Greek. that had that person. Yeah, so that’s what you’re bringing up. Yeah, I don’t know. I think it’s different enough from 1 John 5, 7 to make me think it might not be that he is consciously quoting it. He isn’t quoting it, but he could be alluding to it if he had a Bible that had that statement in it. But when he said, Our Lord said, The Father and I are one, that’s the exact quote, of course, from John chapter 10. But then the other one is not an example.
SPEAKER 06 :
Sorry about that. But how he actually says, again, it is written, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. And Matthew Henry tends to think it actually led him to think that it was authentic. Even the fact that he was probably quoting it from memory and that the habit was always to say the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. as opposed to the direct quote, like you said, the father of the word. Yeah, I thought it was just interesting.
SPEAKER 10 :
I would say that’s a very interesting piece of information there, and it could be determinative if we were quite sure he’s referring to 1 John, because he doesn’t say where it is written. Of course, that statement isn’t written anywhere in our canonical books, but then the canon of the New Testament was not fully established in Cyprian’s day. It wasn’t solidly established as it is now, until the late 4th century, and he was mid-3rd century. So, yeah, I just don’t know. Maybe he had a different book that never was canonized that had that line. Maybe he was paraphrasing 1 John 5-7, which he had in his Bible, but which isn’t in our oldest manuscripts. It’s a mystery, but you say you found it in Matthew Henry, did you?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, Matthew Henry actually has like a couple pages on that first, and he talks about it. Okay. Yeah, just it was interesting to me that when he quoted it, he actually said that Cyprian says, again, it is written, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He says there’s nothing that would be close to that other than 1 John 5, 7. So it was his opinion and thought that it was authentic.
SPEAKER 10 :
Right.
SPEAKER 06 :
I just wanted to get your take on it because I respect you.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, well, I’d be delighted if it was authentic. Because I’m a Trinitarian and I believe that doctrine. But most scholarship does not think so. But on the other hand, Matthew Henry, you know, he has a case there. Of course, he lived hundreds of years ago. And what happens is that in Bible scholarship, there are vogues, there are fashions where all the scholars disagree. tend to look at things the same way because their teachers did and their teachers’ teachers did. And so there become ways of looking at things that become the fashion. Just like today, there’s many people who believe that Revelation was written in the reign of Domitian. That’s the fashion today. A century or more ago, it wasn’t the fashion, and it’s not necessarily the case. Likewise, it’s the fashion today to not believe that the last 12 verses of Mark’s gospel are authentic. but some people have thought so, and there are some apparent citations of those verses, or at least allusions then, in church fathers who predate our oldest manuscripts. So this would be a similar kind of case if Cyprian is in fact referring to that verse, and that’s not entirely clear that he is, but it certainly is fairly close. then that wouldn’t be an argument for it being original. You know, fortunately, I’ve never depended on that verse for my Trinitarian doctrine. I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity can be established without that verse, so that whether that verse exists or not, it would not be a problem to that doctrine. But if that verse was authentic, that’d be great. I’d love it. But I can’t pronounce on it, because even with the information that you gave me, which may be all there is available… It seems like it could go one way or another. He could be alluding to some non-canonical book. He could be paraphrasing 1 John 5-7, but not doing it quite right. So, I don’t know. I’m glad you called it to my attention because no one had ever called that to my attention before. But unfortunately, it doesn’t settle the matter.
SPEAKER 06 :
Right, right. Well, I just appreciate your thoughts, brother, and again, thanks for everything you do. God bless you, Steve.
SPEAKER 10 :
All right, Kola, thank you so much for sharing that.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes, sir. Goodbye.
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay, our next caller is Alberto from San Diego, California. Hi, Alberto.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hello, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. My question is in regards to Genesis chapter 6, the first four verses where it talks about that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they mated with them, and then they procreated children, but they were giants. I’ve heard a couple of different interpretations on this, that the sons of God were angels, or I’ve also heard that they were some evil spirit beings. But I was just kind of wondering, if they were either angels or spirit beings, to mate with you know human you know females and did they have I mean how would their sperm if they had sperm would be able to be conceived inside of a human female’s womb it’s just it’s a little confusing I was wondering if you could bring some clarity on that I want to know who are the sons of God yeah well I think you are raising a legitimate objection to that popular view the view that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were angels who fell because they were seduced by the beauty of women and they ended up
SPEAKER 10 :
in conjugal relations with them and impregnated them and had children with them. This view has been pretty popular among Jews and Christians since the Book of Enoch. I think the Book of Enoch may be the original place where that interpretation was given here. In fact, it’s so common that people might even think as they read it that it says that. It doesn’t say angels. It says sons of God. So the real question is, who are the sons of God? Enoch said the sons of God were angels, and he had this whole scenario. He was not the prophet Enoch, by the way. This is an apocryphal book written two centuries before Christ or less. And it was popular. It was very popular among the Jews and among the Christians, too. And therefore, this idea has become kind of lodged. in the minds of many theologians and so forth, that these were angels coming down and having sex with women. But you raise a good question. How could they have sex with women? Only, I mean, at least to procreate with women, to be able to impregnate women and have babies, you’d have to be a human being. You know, they say that ape DNA is like, what, 97 or more percent identical to human DNA. Yeah, but that’s not close enough. You’ve got to be closer than that. You can’t have a crossbreed between an ape and a human. It has to be more exact. You pretty much have to have exact human DNA to reproduce with a human being. Although, I mean, there can be some genetic mutations and so forth that may pass through, but still human enough. But I don’t know how an angel would get human DNA. Now, what people usually say is that in the Bible, angels sometimes appear as human beings, and that is true. But it doesn’t say they literally are human beings. To be human beings, they’d have to be descended from Adam. They’d have to have human cells, human DNA, and that DNA would have a history going back to their ancestors because that’s where you get your DNA from. It’s a combination of genes and so forth that combine in various ways through your ancestry. So to have literally, genuinely human DNA, you’d pretty much have to have descended from human beings. And if these are angels that came down and simply took on the appearance of human beings… I don’t know that they could reproduce. And the Bible doesn’t say they were angels, so it creates a problem to say they are, a problem that is removed if we do not assume that they are. So I do not assume that the sons of God refers to angels. Now, let me just say this. It may be that they were angels. It may be that there is some kind of biological thing about angels that we were simply not let into the loop on. and maybe that’s what happened. But I think that without being told that they are angels, we are probably not very wise to assume that they were, since we cannot imagine any way that a non-human creature, and no matter how human an angel looks, it’s not a human being. Even when it appears physically in a human form, it can eat food and so forth. It still is not a descendant of Adam and Eve, and therefore it doesn’t have human DNA, or at least you wouldn’t expect it to. So, that being so, I have my doubts that this is referring to angels at all. Now, there’s a number of other theories. We don’t hear them all the time. We hear this angel one a lot. Some people have suggested that the sons of God, that is in the Hebrew, B’nai Elohim, it can simply mean the sons of mighty ones. And I’ve heard some suggest that the sons of God here simply refer to kings or the offspring of kings of powerful people or whatever, though it does not at all explain sort of the outcomes that are described afterward. There is perhaps, I think, a better suggestion in that the sons of God here is used the way it’s usually used in Scripture. Now, there may be times when sons of God is used in Scripture to speak of angels, at least in the book of Job, that appears to be the case. We’re not told in Job that they are angels that are discussed, but things that are said about them make us think they probably were angels. If so, as far as I know, that’s the only place in the Bible where angels would be called sons of God, but there’s numerous places where people are called sons of God in the Old and the New Testament. And therefore, given the difficulty that you bring up, with angels meeting with women, it may be simply more intelligent to say these sons of God are being used, this term is being used the way it’s usually used, rather than the way it’s rarely used. So I’m of the opinion that sons of God probably refers to godly people. That’s how it usually is used, both in the Old and the New Testaments. So godly people, God’s people. And daughters of men would simply be in contrast, that they are human women, but they’re not godly. They’re not from godly families. They’re not godly people. They’re just women. Just girls. And these godly men chose randomly among the females. It says specifically because they saw they were beautiful to look at. So we might assume, and I’m not being dogmatic about this, but we might assume that up until this point, godly men sought for mates godly women so that their children would be raised in a godly home. And that would perpetuate a godly line of human beings on the earth. But what Genesis may be describing is the point where the godly men stopped caring whether they were marrying godly women. They were seen, they were beautiful, they just took whoever they wanted to be their wives without respect to their character. And as a result, you have compromised marriage, you have religiously mixed marriage, you don’t have a godly home specifically to raise children in, and the godly line of humanity seems to be polluted. And the next thing we learn is that God’s impatient with men, not with angels. He doesn’t ever say anything about angels here, but he says, My spirit shall not strive always with men forever. That’s verse 3. So his problem is with men, not with angels. And we see, of course, that he says the thoughts and intents of men’s hearts were only evil continually. We never read about any angels spoken of as angels in the passage, but we do read that men became very corrupt, and this led to the flood. That’s the context. So I think the problem that you raise is a wise one to consider. There may be some way around it that is not revealed to us. We do not know enough about angels. to know how or if they could ever really procreate with human beings, but we have no reason to believe that they can, and this verse doesn’t say that they can. This doesn’t say they’re angels at all. It just says sons of God, and that obviously is a term that can be taken more than one way. So I wouldn’t worry about it. All those people have been dead for a long time, and it doesn’t really matter too much what they were.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. God bless you.
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay. God bless you, Alberto. Bye now. Let’s see here. Troy from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi, Steve. I’ve heard you in the past talk about AI, and my question is, given the fact that we are basically unable to distinguish between AI and a real human now, would you ever consider licensing your likeness so that When you go to be with the Lord, your show could continue.
SPEAKER 10 :
Well, first of all, I haven’t said much about AI because I don’t know much about it. I perhaps have mentioned, acknowledged its existence and the fact that somebody, not I, a person that I have only recently met, has used AI to set up a website where he created, using AI, he made transcripts of my lectures. That website he set up is called OpenTheo.org, OpenTheo.org. And there’s apparently transcripts of all my lectures there that you can just download or have. That’s about all I know about AI.
SPEAKER 09 :
I’m thinking more of like a Q&A show because right now you can use ChatGPT and do a live talk with it, and it will talk to you.
SPEAKER 10 :
Somebody is also doing that, I think. I don’t remember very much about it yet. I haven’t seen much example of it. I think somebody is making a website where AI scans all of my resources and answers questions supposedly the way I would. Now, I don’t know how much I trust AI. You know, when I’ve gone to chat GPT and asked about things I knew about, even biblical things, it usually was pretty good. I mean, it was really surprisingly good. in many cases when I asked, you know, what is Steve Gregg’s opinion of such and such, it came back mostly correct. I mean, maybe a little off. So I’m – as far as making my – an image of me, I don’t need – no one needs to have an image of me. They can just listen to my audio. I don’t have a face made for TV. Anyway, I’ve got a face made for radio. So I think that – I don’t think I would license my – image or whatever. I don’t know. I’m an old school guy. My voice even. Honestly, I don’t see why they’d need to. We’ve got about 10,000 hours of my lectures in one form or another on websites already. Even on websites that have topical of calls going back 20 years, you know, of the show. And you can look up a topic and there’s, you know, like the question I just answered about Genesis 6. If you look up Nephilim or Genesis 6 at that website, you’ll probably get 30 or 50 questions where I answered that same question. So I don’t really think when I’m gone, I’m not even sure I’m needed now. The truth is, you know, I feel like, okay, God, I’m a man with no unrecorded thoughts. I can go home now, take me anytime you want. But, of course, I’ve always had that attitude. But I don’t know that I’m really needed alive or dead right now as long as people want to access what’s available. So I’m not going to look to AI for anything. I can’t say it’ll never happen. By the way, that website I mentioned that has the topical index of calls, it’s got like 25,000 calls from this show on different subjects. You can look up my topic and listen to them. That website is called Matthew713.com. Matthew713.com. And with that there, and it’s added to every day. When this show is over, the questions from this show will be added to it. So, you know, we’ve got, like I said, 25,000 or more questions up there answered today. I don’t really know that I’ll be – I don’t think I’m just going to need more of me after I’m gone.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, you’re a blessing for me, and I just wanted to thank you for all that you do.
SPEAKER 10 :
I appreciate it, Troy. Yeah, it’s an interesting question. People often ask me since I’m old, you know, have you made any arrangements for someone to take your place on the narrow path when you go? And, of course, I’ll be on the narrow path until I die or I’m disabled. But, you know, it’s not like I’m not interested in finding younger people who can do this. But the young people I know who I think are very qualified and I think would do as well as I or better, they’re not really sure that they’d want to at this point. They’re all busy in other ministries anyway. But so we’ll see. I think the program will probably go on when I’m dead because – Trinity Theological Seminary in Evansville, Indiana. They’ve shown an interest in continuing our website and maybe the show after I’m gone. So we’ll see. That time has not yet come. But when it does, we have people who will be doing what they can to perpetuate the ministry if it’s worthwhile.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. God bless.
SPEAKER 10 :
All right, brother. Thanks for your call. Thanks.
SPEAKER 11 :
All right.
SPEAKER 10 :
Let’s talk to… Brian in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Hi, Brian. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks. I’ve got three questions today on the use of the phrase the day of the Lord in the New Testament.
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay, let me stop you here because I just looked at the clock and we’re not going to get three questions in. We might not even get one question in before the break. So we have another half hour coming up and I will take all three of your questions. But I think I’m going to put you on hold right now. We’re going to have a break immediately. And after the break, we’ll come back to your call. Yeah, we can’t get through three questions before our break. Okay, so you’re up next, Brian. Okay, so you’re listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. We have been doing this show for 28 years daily. And so, like I said, there’s been gazillions of calls that have come in over almost 30 years’ time. And that website I mentioned, Matthew713.com, does have, not all of them, But an awful lot of them, going back probably almost 20 years, all the calls that came to the program indexed where you could just look up a topic and the calls on that topic. You’ve got hyperlinks, right? Two of them you can listen to. That website is one to know. Interestingly, that website also has, as another feature, all of my lecture notes. People sometimes write to me and say, could you send me the notes on this or that lecture series? You can find them at Matthew713.com. That is definitely a website to have ready to go to. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming up, but we want you to know we are listener supported. If you’d like to write to us, the address is The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. And our website again is thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
The Narrow Path is one feature of the teaching ministry of Steve Gregg. Steve’s philosophy of teaching is to educate, not indoctrinate his listeners. He believes that Christians should learn to think for themselves about the Bible and not be dependent on him or any other teacher for their convictions. We hope to teach Christians how to think, not what to think about the Bible.
SPEAKER 10 :
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 number to call is 844-484-5737. I want to remind you, I mentioned this several times the past week or so, I’m going to be doing some traveling in the next few months, and I’m traveling to speak, so I’ll be speaking in many of the areas where some of you listeners are. For example, in Tennessee, I’m going to be speaking the first week in Tennessee in a variety of places in both Nashville and south of Nashville and east of Nashville, quite far east. If you’re in Tennessee, you can find on our website where I’m going to be speaking and also the last week of next month I’ll be doing the same kind of thing in Arizona so in March the first week I’ll be in Tennessee the last week I’ll be in Arizona and the next months have some places I’ll be to for example I’ll be in Texas teaching for a week in various places in April in May I’ll be in Seattle area doing the same thing and in mid-October so far we’ve got Oregon booked and Now, most of those areas are pretty much booked up for the whole week, but there may be a day or two that we haven’t booked yet. If you’re in those areas and want to set up a meeting, feel free to get in touch with us, and we’ll see if we can get you on our calendar so that we can hold a meeting where you are and where you want us to be. All right, enough on that. We’re going to go back and talk to Brian from Colorado Springs. We were about to talk to him, and he had three questions. And we didn’t have time for them, so we held them over the break. But now the time is yours, Brian. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah, it’s about the phrase, the day of the Lord, in the New Testament. The first one is in Acts 2, and Peter quotes from Joel and talks about the day of the Lord. In your opinion, is that referring to judgment on Jerusalem in 70 A.D. or the second coming? I see that as 70 A.D., Okay. Interesting. And then is there a difference? I have a friend who thinks there’s a difference between the day of the Lord and then any time it mentions Christ or Jesus Christ. So the day of the Lord Jesus Christ or the day of Jesus or the day of Jesus Christ is that? And he’s a dispensationalist. Is that something common on that opinion? And what are the reasons for that? I haven’t had a chance to ask him why he thinks it.
SPEAKER 10 :
I’ve wondered that too. Yeah, dispensationalists have that view that the day of Christ and the day of the Lord are different expressions for different things. I believe, and I’m not really positive because when I was a dispensationalist, we didn’t talk about this, but later on, Actually, when I was no longer dispensationalist, still reading dispensational books, I ran across this. Well, that’s a strange thing. I think one of them, one of the expressions, I think it’s the day of Christ. They take to be a lengthy period, including the millennium. Maybe the other way around. And I think the other one, they just take to be the second coming of Christ. But there is no basis for making a distinction. To the disciples, the Lord… meant Jesus or Christ. So the day of the Lord was the day of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, you do find different terms used for it, but they’re all synonymous. For example, Peter says in 2 Peter 3, the day of God is coming. But he uses it parallel in that passage with day of the Lord. He uses the term day of the Lord and the term day of God in the same paragraph, seemingly about the same thing. It’s true. Sometimes we find The expression, the day of Christ. Sometimes we find the expression, the day of the Lord. And I think it’s 1 Corinthians 1.7. You find it all combined. The day of our Lord, Jesus Christ. So you’ve got the day of the Lord, Jesus Christ. So it’s the day of Christ. It’s the day of the Lord. It’s the day of God. These are terms that are used in different passages. But as I say, Peter is the only one who ever uses the term day of God in 2 Peter 3, and he uses it parallel with day of the Lord. So in the early church, the Lord was regarded to be Jesus. And I regard Jesus to be Lord, too. So the day of the Lord would simply be another way of saying the day of Jesus or the day of Christ.
SPEAKER 04 :
And then the context would decide if that was, if he was speaking about 70 AD or the second coming or something like that.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, the term the day of the Lord or the day of Christ, of course, the term the day of the Lord, which in the New Testament is also the day of Christ, is a phrase that the Old Testament uses and the New. for a period of Day of Judgment, some kind of judgment activity. And in the Old Testament, of course, the Day of the Lord in Isaiah 13 is the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and the Persians. The Day of the Lord on Edom is the destruction of Edom by the Babylonians and so forth. The Day of the Lord in Joel is the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. So, I mean, the Day of the Lord is simply the day that God is bringing judgment on somebody in the context, whoever is in context being described, they experience the day of the Lord when they experience God’s judgment. So in the New Testament, we have, of course, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is called the day of the Lord. In fact, you mentioned Peter. In Acts chapter 2, he’s quoting Joel. And that’s how the term day of the Lord comes into Peter’s preaching. In Acts 2, he quotes Joel. And I believe he’s quoting a passage that’s talking about AD 70. But when the Bible talks about the day of the Lord coming and the dead being raised, 1 Thessalonians 4, those of us who are alive and remain until the day of the Lord, or maybe he says the coming of the Lord there. I’m not sure, but the terms are used fairly interchangeably. But I believe that the coming of the Lord at the end of the world is also a judgment, and therefore it has as much right to be called the day of the Lord as any other judgment does, depends on what the context is. In a context where it’s talking about the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of everybody for their works, every man, the new heavens and new earth coming, as in 2 Peter 3, I believe all of those cases are references to what we call the second coming of Christ.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah. He mentioned that one of the things I remember him making was that whenever it specifies the day of our Lord Jesus Christ or the day of Christ or the day of Christ Jesus, that… Those are emphasizing the positive aspects that are going to happen to believers. And he said that’s always, so I didn’t know.
SPEAKER 10 :
Well, I don’t know if that’s true. I’ve never gone through and looked at each one to see if they’re always positive or not. There’s obviously positive and negative aspects of the coming of Christ. It’s very negative for his enemies. It says in 2 Thessalonians 1.8 that he’s coming in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who don’t know God. But in the same passage, it says that’s the day when God will give you, Christians, rest. So that day is positive for Christians and negative for non-Christians.
SPEAKER 04 :
I think that’s similar, and that was my third question. In 2 Thessalonians 2, the beginning, I think it mentions both negative and positive. So he was saying in verse 1 and 2, and that’s my third question, is, There’s a reason to think that the day of the Lord at the end of verse 2 is a different event than the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him. That’s at the beginning of verse 1. Again, does he need to see a difference?
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, to me there’s no basis for seeing a difference there. He wants to say that the day of the Lord… cannot come, at least the one in 2 Thessalonians 2.1, the day of the Lord, or the coming of the day of Christ, as he calls it, cannot come until the man of sin has been revealed. But I don’t really, you know, it’s artificial. You know, there’s really nothing. You know, if Paul had read a dispensational book and had been told that he’s supposed to use all these different terms as different events, then maybe we could count on him being faithful in doing so. But we have no evidence that Paul ever dreamed that he was obligated to do that. You know, if he’s talking about the end of the world and that’s a judgment, that’s the day of the Lord at the end of the world. If you start with the judgment of Jerusalem and that judgment, he can call that the day of the Lord upon Jerusalem or just the day of the Lord in the context of talking about Jerusalem. But… But day of Christ, I mean, the distinctions are artificial. It’s like the dispensation, it’s like a distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, which are terms used clearly interchangeably in the Gospels. And so dispensationism just brought in all kinds of distinctions that don’t exist in the Bible. And unless they had told Paul that he had to talk that way, We have no reason to believe that Paul would feel any obligation to do so because he never made it clear that he thought different things about these different terms.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. Well, thank you, Steve, for your ministry. I appreciate you.
SPEAKER 10 :
All right, Brian. Thanks for your call. Okay. Let’s talk to Marla from Kamano Island, Washington. Hey, Marla, welcome.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you for taking my call.
SPEAKER 10 :
Uh-huh.
SPEAKER 03 :
It’s really simple. It’s probably something that should be able to be figured out. It’s simply in the wilderness when Israel was in the wilderness and God provided manna and the quail. I’ve always wondered why… They didn’t eat the animals that they took with them out of Egypt because it’s clear that they, it says they took the livestock with them. They used it for sacrifice. So why were they essentially without food?
SPEAKER 10 :
Well, they were never really without food. They just complained that they didn’t have a very differentiated diet. They got tired of the manna all the time. Their main staple was manna, but they weren’t without meat because in the law, When they sacrificed a cow or a lamb, at least in some of them, there’s five different kinds of sacrifices mentioned in Leviticus. But in some of them, they burned up the whole animal to God. That was called the whole burnt offering. But the sin offerings, the peace offerings, the trespass offerings, I believe in each of those cases, it’s legislated that the worshiper would eat some of the food. Maybe not in all the cases, but there were, of course, the priests would eat some, but there were some where the worshiper also ate some of the meat. Of course, they didn’t bring these animals every day. That would be pretty expensive. You know, they might once a year or on festival days bring an animal, and then they’d eat some meat then. So in other words, it’s not like they didn’t eat any meat during that time, but they just didn’t have the normal, you know, rancher’s diet. And I think the reason… that they didn’t just slay all the livestock, was because they needed it for sacrifices. And, of course, they would need it for seed herds that they’re going to start up, you know, once they were in the land also. They didn’t want to be without cattle when they went in. They’re going to need it. But I think, you know, when God told Moses that he was going to give the people meat because they were complaining about only eating manning, and Moses said these people are complaining, And God said, well, I’ll give them meat. I’ll give them so much meat it’ll be coming out of their noses. And Moses said to God, how are you going to do that? Should we kill all the livestock? You know, in other words, the people were complaining about meat, but they had livestock. So why are they complaining about meat? Well, because they did not consider that eating the livestock, I mean, maybe portions of it when they’re Afro-Saxons, but that livestock was not available to simply eat. slaughter them all and have a big feast. They needed to have animals to slaughter and to reproduce for the next generations and so forth. So, yeah, it’s not like they were totally incapable of eating meat, but they just it just wasn’t a regular part of their diet. And, of course, the meat that God provided for them was quail on that occasion, not livestock. But, yeah, people have often wondered that, and it’s a good question. Why didn’t they just eat their livestock? Well, They had to slaughter thousands of, you know, head of livestock every year and maybe millions. I don’t know. So they just couldn’t couldn’t treat the livestock like it was just available to go and let’s go kill a calf and eat it. We might need that.
SPEAKER 03 :
OK, that’s great. I mean, I never looked at it that way. I really appreciate your input.
SPEAKER 10 :
Actually, the way you made the question, it sounded almost like the answer was in the question, kind of. You mentioned the sacrifice. I think you figured it out yourself. You just didn’t know if you were right.
SPEAKER 03 :
I didn’t. I mean, I do understand the sacrifices and that with certain sacrifices, the people ate of the sacrifice. But I guess I just didn’t put that all together.
SPEAKER 10 :
All right. God bless you, Marla.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 10 :
You too. Good talking to you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay. Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 10 :
Let’s see. Matthew in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hey, thanks for taking my call, sir. Yes, I got a question. I have a friend of the Catholic faith. In reference, we’ve had some conversations about the foundation of how the Bible was collected. And I’m just wondering if you could clarify that process of how there’s like the book of Enoch that was left out for whatever reason. I’m just wondering if you could clarify how that was originally… Okay.
SPEAKER 10 :
The Catholics differ from us Protestants in that the Reformation was built on a principle of sola scriptura, among other things, which means we only accept the Bible and not the traditions of the Church. And the Catholics respond, well, don’t you know, it was the Catholic Church that determined what books go in the Bible. You got your Bible from the Catholic Church. How can you say you only believe the Bible… Not the Catholic Church. Well, they’re wrong about that. We didn’t get our Bible from the Catholic Church. At least not the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was never, it never really was the Roman Catholic Church until the Bishop of Rome was universally recognized in the West as the head of the bishops. And that wasn’t until centuries after the Bible was collected. It’s true the church before that was called the Catholic Church. The word Catholic just means universal. That’s the meaning of the word Catholic. It means universal. But it wasn’t Roman Catholic until the Roman bishop became the head of all the bishops, which was much later than the canonization of Scripture. So the Catholic Church, meaning the Orthodox Christian Church, did determine which books of the Bible belonged there. And there was some dispute. about the apocryphal books. Now, Enoch, though an apocryphal book, was not one of the books that even the Catholics included. Now, the Ethiopian Coptic churches apparently do have Enoch in their Bible. But the Eastern, and I don’t think the Eastern Church does as far as I know, and I know Catholics don’t. Catholics have some books in their Old Testament that Protestants don’t. And the reason that Protestants don’t is because Protestants only wanted to have books that were written by inspired or divinely authorized authors, inspired like the Old Testament prophets or divinely authorized like the apostles. So the books that are in what’s called the Apocrypha, the Catholic Old Testament, everybody respected them. The Catholics respect them. Protestants respect them. The church enjoyed reading them. But when they had to decide what really is, we’re going to make a collection of books that we recognize as the word of God. Well, if it’s going to be the word of God, it’s got to be inspired by God. And if something is going to be considered inspired by God, it has to be written by an inspired author, which would mean a prophet or an apostle. And so they limited it to the books that were known to have been written by prophets and apostolic people. And those books that the Catholic Apocrypha has in them, they were not written in Hebrew, for one thing. They were written in Greek. And they were written after Malachi had died. And Malachi was the last known inspired Hebrew prophet. So during the 400 years between Malachi and the New Testament times, there were lots of books, a lot of interesting, edifying books written by Jewish writers, religious in nature, but they weren’t prophets. They were not written by inspired authors. And so the church liked those books, just like we like to read C.S. Lewis or A.W. Tozer. The church likes to read those books. And they’re good books, but no one is making a case to put them in the Bible because they’re not written by prophets or apostles, and that’s an important thing. So that’s why the Protestant Church didn’t accept those apocryphal books. Now, again, Enoch was not accepted even in the Catholic Bible. So both Protestants and Catholics would agree in excluding the book of Enoch. But there are books that the Catholic Church, Bible does have in them, which most Protestants would say those books have merit as edifying books, but they’re not written by prophets, so we don’t put them in the Bible, because we want the Bible to be just a collection of those books that God actually inspired, and when he inspires it, it’s written through prophets.
SPEAKER 07 :
How many books are there in the Catholic Bible that you’re talking about that aren’t baptized? I’m just kidding.
SPEAKER 10 :
I believe there’s seven books that the Catholic Bible includes in the Old Testament that Protestants don’t. I may be wrong about the number, but I believe there are seven. There are, of course, others that the Catholics don’t accept. For example, the Catholic Bible has 1 and 2 Maccabees, but they don’t have 3 and 4 Maccabees in there for some reason. So there’s other books that might have been considered to be in there. And for some reason the Catholics didn’t put them all in. But the Protestant Bibles generally leave all of those intertestamental books out because they were not written by inspired writers and don’t even claim to be.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. Well, I sure appreciate you clearing that up because I was honestly very confused about that. Thank you very much for taking my call.
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay, Matthew. Thanks for calling. Good talking to you. Okay, let’s see. Michael from San Diego, California. Welcome. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hey, Steve, you there?
SPEAKER 10 :
Yes, go ahead.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hey, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. So I have a question. It’s about Galatians 5. I believe it talks about how we should act and shouldn’t act. And there’s a particular word, strife. I’m talking about a coworker that’s been steering up strife at work. He’s been trying to seem like he’s been trying to get vengeance on what’s been going on with all the coworkers. This particular person is a supervisor and the way he works and the way he acts towards everyone is not good. But I’ve been having a change of heart and I’ve been trying to be better and I’ve been trying to, what can I do to bring peace? But this particular coworker that’s trying to steer of strife on this supervisor, he’s, I guess, just causing up drama with everyone. So I guess what I’m trying to say is how does Galatians 5 describe strife? What does it mean by strife? Is it talking about like complaining and bickering and fighting? And then how would you describe like how we should act and shouldn’t act in Galatians 5? And what could I do and say to my coworker to just not seek vengeance on this particular coworker? in your opinion.
SPEAKER 10 :
First of all, before you hang up, are any of these people Christians?
SPEAKER 05 :
One isn’t, but one is, and I’ve been trying to get him back to church. He doesn’t go to church.
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay, I don’t need a lot of background. Let me just say this. From what you described, I’m still unclear. Is it the supervisor that’s causing strife or a co-worker who’s causing strife between himself and the supervisor?
SPEAKER 05 :
The co-worker is causing strife. The supervisor is the one that’s, like, that has caused a lot of stress and drama. And the one that’s steering the strife is the one that’s trying to fight, like, and getting him, like, transferred out of the –
SPEAKER 10 :
Okay, let me just say this. Let me just say this. It sounds like an intramural dispute within the company. The supervisor is, by nature, it seems to me, higher in the hierarchy than the worker, so it seems like he could handle the problem himself, the supervisor, seemingly, if he’s got a problem with the worker that he supervises. He doesn’t need someone else getting involved. He should just deal with it as the supervisor, but… If the supervisor is at fault, then, of course, someone could go to his higher up. But this doesn’t sound like a problem between Christians. And what Paul’s talking about is Christian behavior. He’s not just saying everybody ought to just behave. Why can’t we just all get along? Although that might be a nice thing to do, Paul didn’t get along with everybody either, especially those people who stoned him and who put him in prison and beat him and things like that. Paul did not assume that there would never be strife between unbelievers. The mention of strife in Galatians chapter 5 is listing the works of the flesh, and he said those who do these things will not inherit the kingdom of God. He mentions a bunch of things, which, you know, he’s writing for Christians. He’s saying the people who behave this way are not really Christians, or they’re at least not walking in the Spirit. And then he describes the fruit of the Spirit, which is different behavior. So he’s giving instructions to Christians. He’s not saying… You know, out there, there’s non-Christians who will cause strife. You must do something about that. Paul is not concerned with civilizing the pagans outside. What the church is concerned about is evangelizing and discipling pagans so that they first become believers, and then you train them how to walk in the Spirit. And strife and those kind of things do not belong in the life of Christians. But, I mean, the way you described it, it’s not even clear to me that the person causing strife is any kind of a Christian at all. So I would say that should be handled inside the company. And what do you do about it? I guess you could be a peacemaker. You know, blessed are the peacemakers. If you can, you know, if someone’s gossiping or criticizing somebody unrightfully, you can speak up something to the situation to calm the situation. Call them the strife if you can. If you can’t, you just live with it. This is the world we live in. That doesn’t sound like we’re talking about a church here. Now, if these people were church leaders, there’d be much more to be said about it, perhaps. But if it’s just someone you work with, if they’re not Christians, I don’t really see how the biblical teaching about it is going to be relevant to them. The Bible doesn’t really just teach how unbelievers should behave. It teaches how to be like Christ if you’re already a follower of Christ. So it sounds like a different kind of circumstance than the one you’re describing. I wish I could tell you to fix it, but I don’t know that you can if you’re not Christians. Let’s see. Tony in San Juan Islands, Washington. I don’t have but a minute or two probably. Can you use it?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, can you hear me?
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, go ahead.
SPEAKER 02 :
um okay i just lost my mom in december and she was a christian which i’m so glad and i am too and um i’m grieving pretty hard even though i’m i’m believing that i’ll see her again one day but um do you have any idea where heaven might be and Being a Christian when she died, is she with the Lord now, or does she have to wait until Jesus returns?
SPEAKER 10 :
I believe if she was a follower of Christ, she’s with the Lord. Paul was talking about that. his life and how difficult it was because he was in prison and he had a hard life and he said uh he he might even be prefer to die he said in philippians 121 for to me to live is christ and to die is gain he says if i live on in the flesh this will mean fruit for my labor yet i don’t know what to choose i’m hard pressed between the two meaning living and dying having a desire to depart the and be with Christ, which is far better. He says most people would just have an instinct to live, but he says, I’m kind of conflicted about that. I might rather just leave, just die, depart, and be with Christ. So Paul certainly believed that if he died, he’d go and be with Christ. And I don’t believe Paul is different than other Christians in that respect. I believe that if you’re a born-again follower of Christ, that you have eternal life. And though your body doesn’t yet exhibit eternal life because it dies and decays, There will be a resurrection someday at the end of the world in which your body will be made immortal. But in the meantime, you still have eternal life. So what happens is when your body dies, you depart from it. You depart and be with the Lord, Paul said. So I believe your mom would be with Christ, assuming she’s a Christian, and therefore you can be sure that she’s happier. She’s in a better place, as they say. Paul said it’s far better to be with Christ. So I hope that may comfort you a bit. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com.
