Join us as we discuss the provocative viewpoints surrounding preterism and how interpretations of biblical prophecy have changed over time. We also address the misconceptions about the second coming and the significance of Israel’s statehood from a scriptural standpoint. This comprehensive conversation offers a look into the ways believers navigate understanding God’s promises and the challenges posed by differing eschatological perspectives.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
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 and so we are doing that today. We’re live and you can call in if you have questions you want to ask and we’ll discuss on the air about the Bible and about Christianity, about problems you have with either of those two, or just looking for clarity. Our lines are full, so don’t call right now, but I’ll give you the number because if you call in a few minutes, probably a line or two may be open because they do open up throughout the hour. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844- 484-5737. Don’t call now, but call in a few minutes and you may get through. I need to start announcing more specifically. About a week from now, I’ll be in Arizona speaking at this point. It looks like about five different locations. On Thursday, the 27th, which is a week from yesterday, I’ll be in Tucson, it looks like. This is the appointments we have at this point. Tucson on Thursday, Maricopa Friday, Peoria and Buckeye on Saturday, and Scottsdale on Sunday. So if you live in or near any of those places and are interested in joining us for any of the meetings, just go to thenarrowpath.com. Click on the tab that says Announcements, and it’ll have all the information, time and place for all those meetings. That’s next weekend coming up, starting Thursday next. All right, so you have been warned. All right, let’s talk to Randy in Dallas, Texas. Randy, welcome.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hi, Steve. My wife and I are looking forward to seeing you when you come to Dallas next month. A question about James chapter 1. Two questions. One is, consider pure joy when you face trials. Would you connect facing trials and faith that are in that chapter 1? And also the second question is, I think it’s verse 6, it says, must believe and not doubt what? And I’ll hang up and listen to you on the radio. Well, before you hang up,
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, don’t hang up, because I’m not sure what your first question is. You said, would I say that that’s about faith and trials?
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah. Consider it pure joy, my brothers, when you face various trials, because you know that. Why is that a test of faith?
SPEAKER 01 :
Trials? Why are they a test of faith? Oh, okay. I’ll be glad to talk about that.
SPEAKER 09 :
Very good. Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye now. The reason that trials are a test of faith is that when you go through trials… It puts questions in your mind about whether God is faithful, whether God even exists, whether your belief in God is a big fantasy and delusion, as the atheists say. Now, you might not ask those questions if you’re a strong Christian, but there are things, great disasters that happen in people’s lives, great hardship and pains and so forth, trials, where the devil uses that to suggest to you, you know, I thought God was there to help you. I thought God was supposed to answer prayers. And if he does, why do you have to go through these trials? And many people, frankly, fail those tests. That’s a test of your faith. It’s a test of your loyalty. Will you still love God? Will you still serve God when the goodness of his actions is not visible to you in your circumstances? And so, you know, since we don’t see God… It says in 1 Peter, whom having not seen, we love. We love God. We love Jesus without having seen him. But because we haven’t seen him, of course, there’s always the possibility to wonder, is the thing I haven’t seen that I believe in, is it really true? And so if you’ve got loyalty to God, if you know that he is true, well, of course, we have to be tested in our faith. Our loyalty has to be tested. And so, you know, God allows. I mean, Job is the perfect example. The trials that came on Job, we know the background of those. He didn’t. You know, all he knew was that all his riches were stolen from him in one day. And his children apparently had died that day all at once. And then like a later day, he got totally sick and everything was wrong in his life. And, you know, but why did those trials happen? Well, he was being tested. That’s exactly what we’re told. The devil was attempting to get him to give up his loyalty to God. And God allowed this to happen in order that he might be truly tested. That’s why Adam and Eve were tested in the Garden of Eden. Now, what they were tested with isn’t what we normally think of as trials, because trials, at least in our parlance, often means troublesome, painful situations that come into our lives, afflictions, tribulations, and so forth. That’s not the only kind of trials we have, but that is, of course, what we often use the term to mean. But Adam and Eve had to be tested. That’s why there was a tree. That’s why there was a serpent. Their loyalty to God had to be tested, and so has every child of theirs and offspring of theirs ever since. Jesus was tested in the wilderness by the devil. He was led by the Spirit to be tested by the devil, it says in Luke chapter 4, verse 1. So we can see that Job was tested, Adam and Eve were tested. Certainly Joseph we see tested, his faith in his imprisonment and so forth. So, I mean, testing of our faith. is part of the whole plan. God wants to vet us and make sure that we’re the right stuff because he plans to, for those who pass the test, he plans to give them responsibilities in the next world. That’s what Jesus said. And so the testing has happened. And one of the most, I mean, there’s a couple of ways your faith can be tested, maybe more, but one of those ways would be perhaps by intellectual arguments that someone brings. You’re not sure how to answer them and so forth. You go, oh, I wonder if I’m right. Another would be probably more cogent than mere arguments, and that is when you’re suffering and miserable, and you can’t understand why God would let this happen to you. You haven’t done anything wrong. And so your faith that God is there and that he’s good is under testing, and that’s what temptation and trials are for in the Christian life. Now, it says in verse 6, you mentioned, Well, beginning of verse 5 and going through verse 7, you ask about this in James 1. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God who gives all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith with no doubting. For he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he will receive anything from the Lord. In other words, when you ask God for wisdom… you need to trust that he’s going to give you the wisdom, that he’s promised it, and he’ll give it to you in that hour. And he says if you don’t have faith when you pray, you really can’t expect that you’ll get anything. So he uses it in the sense of wisdom, but he basically would say this kind of applies to other things we pray for, too. We need to believe God. Now, what do we have to believe, he said? Well, There’s a couple ways that people have looked at this. Some believe that you’ll get the exact thing you asked for, and then you will. And if you don’t believe you’re going to get the exact thing you asked for, then you won’t get it. Now, that’s one way of looking at it. You have to have faith, not wavering, and so forth, no doubting. But the other way that I would look at it, which is, I think, more in keeping with the whole teaching of Scripture about faith and prayer and so forth, is that Your faith is in God. Your faith is not in an outcome. Your faith is in the faithfulness of God. You are coming to God as a child comes to a father. And the child comes to the father because he believes or she believes that the father cares and can help and will do the right thing. Now, kids aren’t always sure about that, about their parents, but they should be if their parents are reliable. And we should be if we’re coming to God because he’s always reliable. So when I pray, if I pray for something to happen, it’s not so much that I’m required to believe that that will happen, because the Bible actually tells us that God sometimes says no to certain prayers. And that, you know, the promise is if we pray according to his will, he hears us. So we have, you know, the promise that God will give us anything we ask is mediated by certain conditions, like God wills. like God wanting it to be. We’re not praying for God to do something he doesn’t want. And if we do accidentally pray for something he doesn’t want, then we hope that he won’t give it because we want his will, not ours. That’s what Jesus taught. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. It’s our request. So it’s not a matter of trusting that the specific thing I ask will necessarily happen because it’s And it’s partly because I don’t trust myself to always know what’s the best thing. And I may be praying for what isn’t, but I do trust God that he always knows the best thing. And he never does anything less than the best thing in answer to his children’s requests. That’s believing in God, believing in his character, believing in his faithfulness, believing that he’s the right person to ask because he’s never wrong. And he cares. So, I mean, that’s faith in God. In fact, most times in the Bible, faith is in a person. It’s a relational thing. It’s not just believing certain propositions. It’s believing in somebody. And in this case, faith in God. So if I ask for wisdom, well, God’s promised wisdom. So I have confidence that no doubt I’ll have the wisdom. But if for some reason it’s withheld, I trust God. that this was a situation where he wanted to put me through something. And I just always trust his goodness. And I’ve been through some trials, and it is hard. It’s hard to believe God is good in trials that just don’t seem to make sense. They don’t seem to be justified. They seem to be destructive and not constructive in any way. But if you just trust God and his character, you will find out. You know, Jesus said, did I not tell you that if you will believe, you will see the glory of God? He said this to two sisters who had asked him to heal their brother who was deathly ill. And he didn’t. He let him die. You know, so, I mean, there’s a case where you think, wait a minute. Jesus is our friend. We asked him to heal our brother who’s going to die. And Jesus didn’t. He just let him die. Now, see, sometimes when God doesn’t answer our prayers as we wish he would, we just can’t see that this can ever be a good situation, that God could get any good out of it at all. And yet, when he raised Lazarus from the dead, they realized that, wow, this really is fantastic. And before he raised him, and they were saying, Lord, if you were here, my brother wouldn’t have died. In other words, if you had just healed him. Jesus said, didn’t I tell you, if you would believe, you’ll see the glory of God. You’ve got to trust God. You’re not looking for a specific answer. You’re presenting your request to God, as any wise child would, with the understanding that, you know, I believe this is a good thing, but Dad knows better than I do. And if he says, I’m sorry, that’s going to have to be something I’m going to have to withhold at this time, it’s not because the father doesn’t care or can’t help, It’s because he knows what’s best and I don’t. And so that’s, you know, to trust in God, the faith unwavering in God is what that’s talking about, not necessarily in the outcome. The Bible doesn’t really tell us necessarily to trust in outcomes, but in the person we’re bringing our request to, which is God. David in Victorville, California. Welcome.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, Steve. Thanks for having me. I had a question. Apostleship came up a lot in the last couple weeks, and I’ve been reading through some epistles last year, and I had some questions about apostleship. And I understand your thoughts on Matthias, and I could consider him one of the 12, you know, and judging the 12 tribes as Israel. And then Paul, I guess, would be like a 13th that was sent out to the Gentiles. And then in one of the epistles, Paul references Jesus’ brother James as an apostle. It seems like he does. And then also in 1 Thessalonians, he says, we were sent to you, and he’s kind of referencing him and Timothy and Silas, and he actually does say we didn’t use our authority.
SPEAKER 01 :
As apostles. So they were sent as apostles.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. So that’s like 16 to me, it sounds like, so far. I don’t think it ever talks about Barnabas officially saying the word apostle, but…
SPEAKER 01 :
It does. It does. Actually, in Acts chapter probably 13, it mentions the apostles, Barnabas and Saul. So there’s a lot of apostles. There’s a lot of apostles. And actually, there’s another place that sometimes people point to about Andronicus and Junia in Romans 16.7. Paul says, greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners who are of note among the apostles. Now, that doesn’t have to say they’re apostles. It could mean that the apostles take note of them. They are of note, you know, in the company of the apostles, they take note of these people. But many scholars believe that he’s saying they are themselves among the apostles and of note in that category. So some people think that Andronicus and Junia are also called apostles. Now, here’s the thing. There are two kinds of apostles mentioned in the New Testament, Paul and Peter, the twelve. they are referred to as apostles of Christ, which means that they are of the status of direct emissaries from Christ. Christ has spoken to them. Christ sent them. They’ve seen him since his resurrection. With the possible exception of Matthias, the Bible doesn’t… Well, no, Matthias did see him. Matthias and the other candidate were with them from the beginning, from John’s ministry until Jesus was brought up. So these apostles… are verbally sent by Christ. Of course, you know that the word apostolos or apostle means one who is sent in an official capacity as an agent. So these were sent by Christ, and they referred to themselves as apostles of Jesus Christ. meaning people sent by Jesus Christ. But there are also apostles of the churches who are not said to be apostles of Christ, but they are sent not by Jesus personally, but by the churches. And Paul mentions them, for example, his companions, which would include people like Timothy and Titus, in 2 Corinthians 8.23, where Paul says, If anyone inquires about Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker concerning you, or if our brethren, meaning his companions traveling with him, are inquired about, they are apostles of the churches, the glory of Christ. Now, the New King James has messengers of the churches. I think the King James does, too. And there may be other translations that do. But in the Greek, it says apostoloi. They’re the apostles of the churches. So they’re not apostles of Christ like Paul is. They weren’t sent by Christ directly. They were sent out, however, to accompany him. They were sent by their churches to go with Paul. So they are apostles of the churches. Now, of course, that would mean, therefore, that there’s some people called apostles, and Paul mentions Titus in particular in this verse, and others unnamed that are considered to be apostles, but not in the same sense Paul or Peter or the others are. By the way, in Philippians chapter 2, In verse 25, he also mentions the word apostle in this connection. When he’s writing to the Philippians, in Philippians 2.25, he says, Yet I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, but your apostle and the one who ministered to my need. Now, the church in Philippi had sent Epaphroditus. And Epaphroditus took Paul when he was in prison and brought him financial assistance as their agent. And he refers to him as your apostle. That is, the apostle from the church of Philippi. So we have Paul more than once referring to people as apostles of the churches when they’re not necessarily apostles of Christ in the sense that he or the others were.
SPEAKER 03 :
So I have Thessalonians here. Thessalonians does say apostles of Christ. So would you consider, would we say missionary, where they’re sent? Is that another word? I’m thinking about cessationism and how some cessationists say that the gifts have ended with the apostles. Well, if our missionaries are sent out from the body, then they’d be considered apostles.
SPEAKER 01 :
They’d be apostles of the church.
SPEAKER 03 :
They perform apostles.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, I think apostles of the churches are exactly what we would call missionaries. Now, when Paul says that we could have demanded more as apostles of Christ, I think probably he’s conferring that status on the company that followed him because he is an apostle of Christ. But he generally refers to them elsewhere as apostles of the churches. And this is true probably of Andronicus and Junius too in Romans 16. Some people say, well, Junius is a female. So there’s a female apostle. And Andronicus and Junius are probably a married couple. And that’s what many scholars would say. Okay, well, I’ve got no problem with that. Married couples can be sent out as missionaries to apostles of the churches. And so, I mean, Peter, we know that 1 Corinthians 9 tells us that Peter traveled with his wife, and so did some of the other apostles. Probably they were considered an apostolic couple, even though she might not have been sent specifically. By virtue of her connection with Peter, you know, they were like sent out ones, you know.
SPEAKER 03 :
I appreciate it. Thank you. Something to think about. Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, David. Good talking to you. Thanks for your call. Lee from Marysville, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hello. First-time caller.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you for calling.
SPEAKER 09 :
I was reading Matthews this week, and when Jesus is talking about his second coming, Matthew 24, 27, and he says, Reading basically for just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west. And then I read Acts 1, 9 through 11, where the angels tell the Galileans, why are you looking in the sky? He’s going to be coming the same way. Was Jesus kind of foretelling the direction of his coming or what?
SPEAKER 01 :
No, no.
SPEAKER 09 :
That makes sense.
SPEAKER 01 :
So he says, for as the lightning, in the Greek the word is astrape, and I’m going to say something about that in a moment. But as the astrape comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Now, the Son of Man’s coming is likened, therefore, to astrape. Now, what is astrape? Of course, it’s translated lightning here. If you look in a lexicon, a Greek lexicon, it’ll say that astrapi means lightning. That’s its first meaning, most common meaning. But it’ll give a secondary meaning that is sometimes used also. Astrapi can also mean bright shining. In fact, we have an instance in the Bible where it absolutely has to mean that. In Luke 11, 36… We read that, let me read it here. It says, Jesus said, if your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, the whole body will be full of light as when the bright shining of a lamp gives you light. The word bright shining there is the word astrape, the same word that’s translated lightning in Matthew 24, 27. So he talks about the bright shining of a lamp or the astrape of a lamp. So it’s clear that the word astrape in different contexts can mean a bolt of lightning or it can mean just light emanating from a source, right? So what does it mean when we say that Jesus said he’s going to come like lightning? Usually we think of lightning just as a very sudden and quick thing. And so some people think that Jesus is speaking of his coming as a very sudden and quick event, like a bolt of lightning. However, I’ve always wondered when I was younger, why would Jesus say that lightning necessarily flashes from east to west? It seems like lightning may flash. travel any direction, vertically or horizontally, any direction. So why would Jesus speak as if it’s axiomatic that lightning flashes from the east to the west? Well, I don’t think he meant that. I think that astrapi probably should be translated bright shining. In that case, he’s saying as the bright shining flashes from the east and shines to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. Now, if someone said that to you, the shining from the east that goes westward, you’d probably think of the sunrise. I mean, that’s, you know, it is axiomatic that the sun rises in the east and goes to the west, whereas it’s not axiomatic that a bolt of lightning will do so. And he’s speaking about that not to tell you something new about lightning or bright shining. He’s assuming that’s a familiar thing. Just as this is so, which you all know, so also you can apply that to the coming of the Son of Man. So, It seems to me that the translation should say, and I’ll just warn you in advance, there are no translations I’ve ever encountered that say this. As far as I know, I’m the only person who’s ever said this, so fair warning. I may be wrong, but I can’t see how I could be. because I don’t know why, if you have the choice of saying lightning flashes from the east to the west, or saying a bright shining flashes from the east to the west, why you wouldn’t choose the second, because the word astrophic can mean either one. You know, you can’t find this confirmed in any translation, so I could be wrong. It’s a matter of opinion. I just think it has the most likelihood of being correct. So he’s not saying that his coming will be like a bolt of lightning, but like the sunrise. Now, that makes sense because his first coming was like compared to a sunrise because it was said of him when John the Baptist was born, just before Jesus was born, Zechariah said that the dawning of the day has come upon us. The day spring from on high is what that refers to. So it was the beginning of a day. Jesus, the son of righteousness, was arising with healing in his wings, as Malachi says. And son of righteousness in Malachi 4.1 or 4 something is S-U-N. It’s the son. rising, the sun of righteousness will rise. In Isaiah 60 it says, Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you like a sunrise. And it’s talking about the coming of Christ and then the Gentiles being brought to the brightness of his rising. So his first coming was likened to a sunrise, and then he went away. And then he’ll come back like another day, another day dawning. And I think that that’s probably how that’s to be understood. obviously people can understand it other ways, and some people are probably emotionally attached to the way they’ve understood it in the past, and I can’t fight against emotions, but in my opinion, from a strictly exegetical point of view, I think he’s simply saying his coming will be, in some respects, like a new day dawning. And it’s interesting, too, because in Proverbs it says, I think it’s Proverbs 18, 23, I could be wrong about that. No, it’s a different chapter, but Anyway, 423, I’m going to guess. It says the path of the righteous is like the light of the dawn, which grows brighter and brighter until the full day. And so, you know, it’s like as we walk with Christ, we are changed from glory to glory into his image. And the path of the righteous becomes brighter and brighter until the full day when Jesus actually shows up. So there’s a sense in which there’s a forewarning of his coming in the very increased glory of the church. By the way, that was Proverbs 4.18. I had the wrong verse there. Proverbs 4.18. So I need to take a break, but I hope that might be helpful to you, brother. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming up, so don’t go away. We are listener-supported. If you’d like to go to our website, you can donate from there if you want to, or just take everything that’s there for free, and that’s a lot. It’s thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds, so don’t go away.
SPEAKER 02 :
If you’ve been listening to The Narrow Path for very long, you know how much it has enhanced your study and understanding of Scripture and possibly your whole Christian life. Don’t you think all your friends should benefit from the program as you have? You help to partner with us in impacting the body of Christ when you tell all your friends to listen to The Narrow Path. If you have not done so, visit the website thenarrowpath.com and discover all that is available for your learning pleasure.
SPEAKER 01 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we are live for another half hour taking your calls. We have one line open right now if you’d like to try to get through. The number is 844-484-5737. Our next caller today is Kevin from River Rouge, Michigan. Hi, Kevin. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey, Steve. Hello again. I’m confused over two questions. I talked to a friend. He lives in South Carolina. I grew up there. We grew up together here in Michigan. He seems to be a preterist who believes in universalism and that people all are saved, that they’re walking around. They just don’t know they are. Some do and some don’t. And that Christ came back in 70 A.D., That is one question I have, which I don’t believe. Otherwise, he’d have to come back 310. The other one is in Genesis 3, regarding whether or not Adam was right next to Eve when she ate of the forbidden fruit, because he mentioned to her husband who was with her. Now, that could mean he was in the garden with her. So just a comment on both of those things.
SPEAKER 01 :
Right. Well, on the second one, it’s the quickest one to answer. Some people do describe the situation as Eve was having this conversation with the serpent, and Adam was standing right by passively listening and doing nothing to stop her, and he was totally not protecting her as he should, and therefore really ragging on him. And that could be because, I mean, the reason they say it is because in Genesis 3 it says she ate and she gave it to her husband with her and he ate. Now, it says her husband was with her. Some people take that to mean he was just standing there by the tree with her at the time listening to the whole conversation. And we can’t rule that out, but we also can’t say that’s what it means. Her husband with her in the world, her husband with her in the garden, you know, maybe not right there, maybe not listening to the conversation, but he’s, you know, she wasn’t alone. You know, she was in the garden with her husband. And so it’s not clear whether it means he was with her like within, you know, a few yards of her or with her in the sense that sharing the same home and, you know, plot of land, the garden with her. So we can’t really say with certainty. whether he was right there or whether he was simply in the garden with her, as you suggested. Now, the other part, your friend apparently is a full preterist and a universalist. That seems to be what you said. Yes. Pardon?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes, that’s what I picked up. He said that Christ already came back, you know, and I have my ex-brothers-in-law think the same thing, like Gary DeMars, so. I don’t believe that.
SPEAKER 01 :
Right. It’s confusing where Gary DeMar is these days because he used to be a champion of partial preterism. And there are many who believe he has moved into full preterism. I don’t know that he’s said that he has. I think that he’s reluctant to make a firm stand about it because he’s started to see some things, perhaps more in the way that the full preterists do, and instead of ragging on his heretics, I think he tends to try to be a little more understanding of them and other partial preterists. who used to be his companions, in the same view, are frustrated with him because he’s not distancing himself from full preterism. So I don’t know if he’s full preterist yet or not. It looks like he may be going that way. I’m not, and I haven’t moved any closer to that direction. I’ve been a partial preterist for 40 years, and I’ve never seen any reason to move in the direction of full preterism. Now for those who don’t know what those words mean, preterism means seeing prophecy as fulfilled in the past. A full preterist is a person who thinks that all prophecy has been fulfilled in the past. Generally, they believe that when the Bible talks about the second coming and the resurrection and the rapture and the new heavens and the new earth and the final judgment, that’s all talking about stuff that happened in some spiritual sense in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. That’s what full preterism is. the partial preterist, which is much more common and much more reasonable, in my opinion, is that we recognize some passages as having a past fulfillment in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed, and some of the passages that we see fulfilled there are passages that we once thought were about the second coming of Christ, but through further study we recognize that the context and other things have suggested that this is not that they weren’t talking about the end of the world, second coming of Christ. They were talking about, in figurative language, about what happened in A.D.
SPEAKER 1 :
70.
SPEAKER 01 :
But the partial preterist only sees this about some passages, not all. The full preterist thinks it’s true of all the passages. Everything’s been fulfilled. Nothing remains. There’s no future second coming, no future judgment. They just believe everyone lives their life and then goes to heaven or hell, and that’s it. Whereas the partial preterist People like Ken Gentry and people like myself believe that some of those passages that are commonly used of the second coming in people’s preaching aren’t really talking about the second coming. But there are some that are. The second coming is not absent from the Bible. It’s just not in as many passages as some people have thought. So that’s a different viewpoint. Your friend is of the full preterist type, and that’s… I believe that’s an error. And I wrote a book against full preterism called Why Not Full Preterism? And I answered a question in the book, 300 pages, telling why not full preterism. But anyway, having said that, there’s also the universalist aspect. I’ve also written a book discussing that. And there are three views of hell here. But your friend might not hold any of them. The kind of universalist he is, it sounds like you’re saying they’re already saved and they’re walking around and they just don’t know it or something like that.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, he doesn’t believe in hell.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, he doesn’t believe in any hell. Okay. So he’s a no-heller. There are people who call themselves no-hellers. People who do believe in hell, like myself, have realized that there’s more than one possible outlook about hell. And one of them… is sometimes called universalism, but I don’t think it’s the right name for it because universalism is a very inexact term. Some people would say, well, universalism means everyone’s going to be saved just because God would never send anyone to hell. And no matter how bad they are, God’s grace is enough. He’ll just overlook it. You don’t even need Jesus. You can be in any religion or no religion at all, and to your surprise, you’ll find out you’re saved at the end. or of your life, that’s not, to my mind, a biblical doctrine at all. There are biblical Christians, though, and there always have been from the earliest church fathers, or at least from almost the very earliest church fathers, who thought that people who go to hell may yet repent there and be restored to God, and that given enough time, people don’t have infinite powers of resistance because they’re finite people. that they will all repent and come back to God. So they would be called, well, Origen, the church father who is famous for this view, he called it restorationism. So it’s the idea that God’s going to restore everyone, though many will go to hell and suffer there, but that won’t be necessarily the end of their opportunity. That’s one of the three views of hell. That was very common in the first three centuries or four. of the church. And there are biblical, you know, biblical case can be made for all three of the views, including that one. But if your friend is simply saying, well, Jesus just died for everyone, so everyone’s unilaterally saved. They don’t ever have to repent. Don’t ever have to believe in Jesus. They’re just saved. That’s, to my mind, I don’t think there’s anything in the Bible that supports that. But, you know, and that’s not what I would consider an evangelical position. Though there are different views that can all be harmonized with evangelical positions. And my book, Why Hell? Three Christian Views, discusses that.
SPEAKER 06 :
Thanks a lot, Steve.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, brother. Thanks for your call. All right, we’re going to talk to Anthony in Buffalo, New York. Anthony, welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hello. Yes, thank you for taking my call. My question is just simply… Is there a connection between Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7 on false prophets and his words on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12? Because he reuses the analogy of the good and corrupt trees. So I was wondering your thoughts on that.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, that’s a good question. There could be a connection, though I don’t know if there’s a one-on-one identity between between false prophets in general and people who have blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Certainly, if somebody has blasphemed the Holy Spirit and they are preaching, therefore, a blasphemous gospel, they would be false prophets. I’m not sure that all false prophets fit the category of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I’m not sure. I mean, some might say if someone claims to be speaking by the Spirit of God and they’re really speaking falsely, then they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. And if so, then there’s an awful lot of sincere Christians, who I think love God and love Jesus, who might fall into that category. And I don’t think that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is anything that a sincere Christian can do, but certainly in charismatic or Pentecostal churches, there’s a lot of people who give prophetic utterances or claiming to be by the Holy Spirit or even I’ve just known individuals who come and say God’s Spirit revealed to me this and sometimes maybe they’re right but sometimes they’re clearly wrong and so if someone says well the Spirit of God showed me this and it turns out they’re not right they in a sense have prophesied falsely but have they really blasphemed the Holy Spirit in the sense that they’re unpardonable? I don’t really I’m not sure that That’s what Jesus is referring to. But I would say there’s some overlap. Certainly those who have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, if they are prophesying and so forth, would be the same. They’d be false prophets. But I’m not sure that everyone who’d be called a false prophet has done something unforgivable yet. Maybe. I mean, maybe. I don’t know. I mean, that’s a good question. But you’re right. You mentioned both passages follow up talking about good trees and bad trees. And it would appear that the good tree and a good fruit refers to… speaking truth. The fruit is speaking the truth. And that comes from a true believer, a true prophet or whatever. Because Jesus does say, beware of false prophets. And the bad tree, the bad fruit comes from a bad tree. And the bad fruit is a false prophesying. So that’s coming from a false prophet. And Jesus used the same illustration of tree and fruit in Matthew 12 when he’s talking about the blasphemy of the Spirit. So, I mean, that’s a good observation. And I would say the ideas certainly overlap, but I’m not sure that they’re coextensive. That is, perhaps everyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit could be considered a false prophet without it necessarily being so that everyone who is a false prophet has blasphemed the Holy Spirit. I’m reluctant to make that connection in every case, though I really can’t say for sure. You make a good point.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I was just wondering if his teaching on false prophets was, you know, beware these people, whereas in Matthew chapter 12, they’re basically calling Jesus essentially a false prophet, like this guy’s not from the… That was my train of thought, sort of, but I was just… Yeah, well, it’s… I mean, Jesus in Matthew 7 is telling us to beware of the danger of hearing false prophets, whereas…
SPEAKER 01 :
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12 seems to tell me of the danger of committing that error ourselves. At least people who do that are warned that they’ll have no forgiveness in this age or the age to come. So maybe it’s the same subject from two different angles. On the one hand, beware of people who are like that. On the other hand, beware of being one.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Thank you for joining us, brother. Let’s talk to, let’s see, it’s going to be Gus from Costa Mesa, California. Hi, Gus. Welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thank you, Steve. I have a couple of questions about this sensationalism, which I know you don’t hold, nor I. The first one is, was the reestablishment of the State of Israel in 1948 a commonly held by dispensational theologians as being a fulfillment of the promise to bring Israel back to Canaan. I know it was very popular in Christian media and the rank and file, but I wasn’t sure if that was kind of a universally held view amongst dispensational theologians.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yes, I would say so. I mean, there might… Well, no, let me take that back. Let me take that back. There are… There are some of the older dispensational theologians who in 1948 did not think this was the fulfillment. And J. Vernon McGee was one of them. J. Vernon McGee was an old school dispensationalist. And he said very directly on his program that what’s happening, of course, he said this decades ago because he’s been dead for decades. But it was after 1948. He said what’s going on in Israel right now is not what the Bible predicted. He said, because what the Bible predicts is that the Jews around the world will repent and come to faith and then come back. And he’s correct that that is what the predictions say. I believe, of course, that those predictions are not talking about the end times, but about the return of the exiles from Babylon in 539 B.C. And it was believers, the Jews, the remnant whose heart God moved, it says in Ezra, are the ones who came back. So These were people repentant for their sins and coming back just as the prophets said would happen. Now, I don’t think there’s an end times prediction of this, but some people, of course, many people do. And actually, J. Vernon McGee did believe that there is an end times fulfillment to be had, but that this isn’t it, because the Jews have come back to their land in 1948 and since. are not largely believers. Less than 20% of the Jews in Israel are even Jewish by religion. And less than 2% are Christians. So this is not a mass repentance of the Jews worldwide and coming back, as the prophets described, coming back with singing and joy and repentance and so forth. That hasn’t happened. And so McGee… was very strong on this. He said, no, this is not it. Now, I don’t know what he thought would be it. I don’t know if he thought the Jews would then be dispersed again and then later convert and come back. I’m not really sure how he saw that happening. But very few dispensationalists since 1948 have held that view. You see, McGee, of course, was in ministry teaching dispensationalism before 1948. So he was the old school type. Darby and the early dispensations believed that the Bible predicted there’d be a turning to God on the part of Jews all over the world. And as a result of that, as Deuteronomy 30, verses 1 through 10 makes very clear, as a result of their repentance, God would bring them back to the land. And they never believed that. in a return of unrepentant Jews to the land. But when 1948 happened, it was so dramatic that dispensationalists thought, well, this certainly must be the return of the land to the land. So they changed it, and now almost all of them will say, oh, no, the Bible predicts that they’ll come back to the land in unbelief, and then they’ll be converted. It’s interesting, this is newspaper exegesis, you know, by changes in current events. Well, either the Bible speaks of repentant Jews coming back or of unrepentant Jews coming back. But all dispensationalists before 1948 thought it only talked about repentant ones. And now almost all dispensationalists, no, it says unrepentant. So this is really a strange thing that Scripture could be so flexible that before 1948, Scripture means one thing. And after 1948, it means the opposite thing. But that’s how dispensationalism is. But, yeah. Okay, your second question.
SPEAKER 08 :
It’s along the same lines. So the prediction that Jesus’ final return would be within one generation after this return of Israel to the land, again, was that commonly held by dispensational scholars and theologians?
SPEAKER 01 :
Now, I can’t say that I know whether they all held that view. Obviously, I think mostly they did. And virtually every dispensationalist I’ve ever heard since then thinks that Jesus predicted that the generation that sees Israel return as a nation will be the final generation. Of course, Jesus doesn’t say anything remotely like that. They base it, as you know, on Matthew 24, where Jesus said, consider the fig tree, you know, when it sets forth its leaves and new growth and know that summer is near. You know, there’s a sign in nature. that spring is coming because the trees are sprouting new growth. And so the dispensations often say, well, the fig tree represents Israel, so the springing forth of new growth refers to them coming back to their nation after a long dispersion, a long winter of diaspora. But it doesn’t. I mean, it doesn’t mean that there. Jesus just said this natural phenomenon that you see, makes it possible to predict when springs come. He said, in the same way, when you see the signs I’m talking about, know that it is near, even at the doors. So he’s not really saying. that the fig tree represents Israel. He’s just giving an example how you can sometimes predict things that are coming by what you see. Then he says, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away until all these things are fulfilled. Well, this generation was his own generation. And we know that because he was continually talking about his own generation. He used the expression this generation five or six times in Matthew. And all the other times, besides this one, he’s talking about his own contemporaries, his generation. And in one place, he even said the same thing, you know, expressing it differently in Matthew 16, I think it’s verse 28, where he said, you know, some of you standing here will not taste death before you see the Son of Man coming into this kingdom. So, you know, some of you won’t taste death. It’s kind of the same thing as saying this generation won’t pass. So there’s no reference to an end times generation here. He’s talking about his own generation. If he was talking about a different generation, he should have said that generation will not pass away. But he said this generation will not, which means, of course, his own. All right. Hey, I’m running out of time. A lot of people are waiting, but I appreciate your call, brother. Thanks, Steve. Okay. Bye-bye. Bye now. Fred from Alameda, California. Welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi. Hi. When it says in Genesis that God rested on the seventh day, does that tell us to keep the Sabbath on Saturday or not necessarily?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, if we keep the Sabbath, Genesis and Exodus and all the Bible makes it very clear that Saturday is the Sabbath. However, the New Testament does not say that Christians are supposed to keep the Sabbath. It’s a different covenant. In Exodus 30, God said that keeping the Sabbath was a specific sign of the covenant between himself and Israel, which was the Sinaitic covenant. And we do not know of God ever telling anyone to keep the Sabbath before the Exodus. And, of course, he put it in the Ten Commandments shortly after that. But here in Genesis 2, verses 1 through 3, it doesn’t say that God told anyone to keep it. It says that God rested and he sanctified it. But it doesn’t say he told anyone else to observe it there.
SPEAKER 07 :
Right.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Okay. Thank you for your call. Flora from Mesa, Arizona. Welcome. Yes.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Flora Gonzalez. Yes.
SPEAKER 01 :
I’m sorry, your phone is breaking up. I can’t hear what you’re saying.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hold on one second. Hi, my name is Flora Gonzalez. Can you hear me better?
SPEAKER 01 :
I think so. Keep going.
SPEAKER 05 :
Oh, hi. Well, I’m just… I’ve been listening to you guys’ story, and I think… I’ve been having a lot to choose right now, but it’s because God has been speaking to me, and nobody believes me, and… It’s regarding, but let me tell you something a little bit.
SPEAKER 01 :
You know, I’m sorry. Your phone is breaking up. Your voice is very garbled, which is making it impossible for you. I’m sorry. Why don’t you call back from a better location? maybe on Monday and share with me, because I’d like to hear you, but I’m not getting it on your phone now. So I’m going to have to move to another caller. But if you can call from a better phone, maybe on Monday, I’ll be glad to hear more about what you have to say. I’m sorry. Let’s talk to Dexter in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Dexter, welcome.
SPEAKER 11 :
Hi. One of my questions is, so I’m in Bible college and very new to Bible college, actually. And One of the things I’ve been learning is how to evangelize and share the gospel. And I was wondering if you had maybe any tips or ways that I can do that with my coworkers, because I work with folks who aren’t, you know, Christians, but some of them are opposed to me talking to them, but I want to be able to talk to them without also pushing them away or… Okay.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, I’ll say this. There are people who will not let you talk to them about this without pushing them away. And those are the people that God is not drawing. Jesus said, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. So people will come to Christ through your witness if God is drawing them. Now, if someone says, I won’t listen to you about this. Don’t speak to me anymore about it. I don’t want to be around you. Well, obviously, they are not being drawn. Now, they might be later. Maybe this isn’t their time. Maybe God will do something in their life later and make them more open. But at this time, don’t waste your time. Don’t cast your pearls before swine, Jesus said. So I would say just you don’t have to witness to everybody. It’d be nice if you could, but not everyone will let you. And there are people that if you spent your time witnessing to. They’re just not ready and they’re not going to come. And it takes up your time from talking to someone who might be ready. So I would say don’t be under some kind of legalistic bondage. I can’t let anyone I work with go without hearing the gospel. Well, you’re not the only person that God can use at some point in their life. If they won’t listen to you, I’d say move on to people who will. and it may be that you’ll drive people away if you’re a little too much like a Jehovah’s Witness in their eyes, somebody who’s kind of getting into their space and just preaching a message they don’t want to hear. I would suggest that you live your life before them in such a way that they say, wow, I’m pretty impressed by that Dexter, the way he lives. He’s an honest guy. He’s a caring guy. He’s a generous guy. He’s different than lots of people I know. I wonder what it is. And if someone says, well, he’s a Christian, then that’ll be a great testimony. They might even ask you, all the better. But the point is… sometimes in our zeal to evangelize, we do drive people away because we’re talking to people who are not the least bit interested and who become offended. Well, to me, there’s lots of people that God will… that God is drawing and who will be converted if you tell him about Christ. But if you waste your time with people who aren’t ready, it might make it worse, not better. I’d say more, but the whistling has begun, and I’m off the air in 30 seconds. So I’m sorry I can’t go further with you today on that. But God bless you.
SPEAKER 12 :
I appreciate it. Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Thank you, brother. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We are a listener-supported ministry. You can help us stay on the air if you want. You can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730. Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can help us out from the website if you want to. It’s thenarrowpath.com. Have a good weekend.
