In this episode, we journey through the realms of biblical translations and understand how translations have shifted over centuries. We delve into the King James Version’s history, its revisions, and why it holds prominence among English-speaking Protestant communities. The discussions take us further into the ideological battlegrounds of dispensational theology and the nuanced understanding of prophetic scriptures, including the famous abomination of desolation and the end times.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
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 we can take your calls. And if you have questions you want to call in with about the Bible, about Christianity, we’ll talk about those questions together on the air. If you see things differently from the way the host expresses things, you can call in and talk about that. We’ll talk about disagreements very happily if you want to call in and talk about them. If you are not a Christian and you would like to present some challenges to Christianity or the Bible, you’re welcome to call in. I’d love to talk to you about those things, too. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Now, I think the only announcement I have to make this week has to do with Wednesday night. It’s the first Wednesday of July and the first Wednesday of every month. We have a Zoom meeting, which everyone around the world who wants to can participate in. Generally speaking, it’s a Q&A. Now, I don’t remember if I agreed to talk about some subject. I’ll have to check on that. I’ll announce that tomorrow or Wednesday. But I don’t remember if it’s Q&A this time or not, but usually it is. And once in a while we do something different, and I’ll teach on something. But that’s Wednesday night, 7 o’clock Pacific time. And there’s login information at our website, thenarrowpath.com, under the tab that says Announcements. All right, so we’ll go right to the phones now and talk to Carrie, who’s calling from Fort Worth, Texas. Hi, Carrie. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Thanks.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi, Steve. I was wondering if you could give a definition of progressive revelation, just because I believe that dispensationalists, they either ignore this concept of biblical interpretation or they really stumble with it.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah. Well, you know, I think that dispensationalists would say, that they believe in progressive revelation, but they don’t seem to acknowledge its impact on the change from the old covenant to the new covenant. Progressive revelation simply means that God did not, in the earliest days of humanity, reveal everything that he would eventually reveal. Of course, the ultimate revelation came through Christ, and even after Christ ascended, he told his disciples, that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. And so they had things like the Jerusalem Council and so forth in Acts chapter 15, where they came to wrestle with some issues and came to see some things more clearly. But in the Old Testament, of course, the revelation that God gave was very partial. Of course, he did make some kind of a prediction of salvation for the human race through Christ. right at the very beginning to Adam and Eve, but it’s a very obscure statement in Genesis 3, I think it’s verse 16, or 15 or 16, but it’s kind of like a vague, cryptic remark indicating that God would send somebody, of course it turned out to be Christ, to undo the damage that Eve and Adam had done. But as time went on, he revealed himself to other individuals, and especially to Abraham, In Genesis 12, he made some promises to Abram and to his seed. Now, he didn’t clarify initially who he meant by his seed. And that was something that is progressively revealed, too. Because initially, Abram’s firstborn son was Ishmael, and he assumed that’s the seed. You know, he’s my seed. And then God later showed him, no, he’s not going to be your seed. It’s going to be another one named Isaac. And then, of course, when Isaac had two sons, it was revealed that one of them and not the other was going to be Abraham’s seed to bring forth the fulfillment of the promises. And then, of course, Jacob had 12 sons, and God revealed some things to him, too. And basically, probably the newest thing that came up in that generation would be that God singled out the tribe of Judah, one of Jacob’s 12 sons, to be the one through whom the Messiah would come, the king. And As time went on, later on, he revealed to David, who was of the tribe of Judah, that it would be specifically his family that the Messiah would come through, and so forth. So, these are things that were not known or made known right at the beginning, but progressively, through time, God gave more and more information. That’s what we call progressive revelation. God revealed things progressively, not all at once. They didn’t need to know all that all at once. Now, you mentioned the dispensationalists seem to stumble over this. They do, although they would acknowledge what I just said. They would acknowledge that this Old Testament revelation, and even up to the time of Christ, was progressive. But what they don’t seem to recognize is that the New Testament also goes further in identifying who Abraham’s seed is. Just like God had to tell Abraham, it’s not going to be Ishmael, it’s going to be Isaac. And he had to tell Isaac it’s not going to be Esau, it’s going to be Jacob. And, you know, and then Jacob was prophesied that Judah would be the one through whom the Messiah would come. Well, so also the New Testament tells us that Abraham’s seed is Christ himself and all who are in Christ. That’s what, for example, Paul tells us. Now, Paul in Galatians chapter 1 tells us that the gospel he preached was revealed directly to him by Christ himself. And Christians typically believe this. I do. And the church always has believed that. Paul received divine revelation from Christ as to the nature of the gospel. But what he also revealed in the same book is that the seed of Abraham through whom the promises would be fulfilled is Christ himself. And he said, and if you are in Christ or if you belong to Christ, this is Galatians 3, I think it’s 29. And he says, you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. So, he’s further revealed who Abraham’s seed are. Now, that’s the step that the dispensationalists don’t take. They take all the previous steps. But when God says, okay, Abraham’s seed is Christ, and the promises are for him, and we are in Christ, we are one in Christ, we’re Jew or Gentile, male or female, bond or free, he said there, But we’re one in Christ. There’s only one seed. It’s Christ. And we are one. We are in him. We’re his body. And as his body, we are Abraham’s seed and the heirs according to the promise. Now, you know, Abraham, I mean, Paul couldn’t have been more explicit. And it agrees with everything that Peter said. Because Peter said to the church, which is the body of Christ, you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. Well, those are the things that were said about Israel back in Genesis, or in Exodus chapter 19. But now they apply to the church, Peter said. And, of course, that’s agreeable with everything the New Testament says. There’s not one thing in the New Testament that identifies the seed of Abraham differently than that. Now, of course… What dispensations say, well, the promise to the seed of Abraham in the Old Testament, they understood it to be the Jewish people are the seed of Abraham. Well, so they did. Just like Abraham once thought it was going to be Ishmael. For the first 13 years of Ishmael’s life, Abraham held the wrong view that his seed was Ishmael. And then he found out, no, it’s going to be Isaac. And so, I mean, people can hold the wrong view for a while. And they can’t be blamed for holding the wrong view if God hasn’t revealed it more clearly. But he does. He progressively reveals things. And the New Testament is the ultimate revelation of the fulfillment of those promises made to Abraham. And they are fulfilled in Christ. That’s, as I say, dispensations don’t believe that. They say, no, no, Jesus is not the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. a restoration of the Jewish people in their ancestral land is the fulfillment of the promise. So they’ve replaced Jesus as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise with a geopolitical arrangement set up by the United Nations, which they believe is in the end times. So I would call that replacement theology. Now, of course, they would say that I’m teaching replacement theology because I’m saying Christ is Is the seed not the Jewish people? So they say you’re replacing the Jewish people with Christ. Well, you’re replacing Christ with the Jewish people and with the Jewish political state. And frankly, that’s a bad exchange. That’s just a bad exchange. If I gave up Christ and got a geopolitical Jewish state in the size of New Jersey in its place, I’d say I feel cheated. And that’s because my views are New Testament views. Theirs are Old Testament views. Dispensationalism is an Old Testament system. Yeah, they recognize Jesus as the Savior, but they don’t see him as the fulfillment. They think he came to fulfill, but he failed because the Jews rejected him, and so he postponed the fulfillment until the end of the world. So they don’t see Jesus as fulfilling it, even though Jesus said he came to fulfill it, and he said that he had accomplished what he came to do. So, they’re just really mixed up. You’re right. I mean, they are very mixed up about progressive revelation. It’s a fairly simple concept. And the church never had any problem with it until dispensationalism came along to confuse things. Because for at least, well, for 1800 years, the church understood Jesus is the fulfillment of those promises. Because the church went by the New Testament. John Nelson Darby came along and, yeah, he had the New Testament too, but he always thought the Old Testament was more was a clearer revelation of what God’s doing and the New Testament cannot add or take anything from it. And so that’s where the problem lies. All right? Thanks, Steve. That was great. Okay, Kerry. Thanks for your call. Let’s see. Howard in Boise, Idaho is next. Howard, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi. A couple of questions. I had heard that the 1611 first version of had some stuff in it that was different, and like by the second or third edition, they had corrected some things. Have you heard anything about that?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, many people may not know. You’re talking about the King James Version of the Bible. Yes. Yeah, the King James Version went through, if I recall, something like five revisions, something like that. And at least I’ve read that somewhere. I don’t know the exact number, but But the Bible’s always, the English translation, and frankly, the translation of the Bible in other languages, German, French, Spanish, all the languages that have had their own translations of the Bible, they’ve all gone through revisions. And that’s because English language changes. So you sometimes have to realize that, okay, the English word we used to translate this particular Greek word, well, that… It was a good translation at the time, but English has changed, and that English word doesn’t mean the same thing now, so we have to make another translation where we translate the Greek with the word in English that currently has that meaning, because language has changed. So translation, especially when it covers centuries, when it’s a process that goes on for centuries, has to accommodate the change in language, too. Now, in the case of the English Bible, it also had to accommodate… the discovery of more manuscripts of the Greek, especially, of the New Testament. The King James Version was translated from a couple handfuls of manuscripts that were available. They didn’t have that many. They had some. And so they made the translation the best they could from it. But since that time, that’s been 400-something years ago now, or actually going on 500, since Since that time, we have found a lot more manuscripts, like thousands of them. And so as these manuscripts are discovered, as they’re read, as we see slight differences between them, and by the way, the differences are typically very slight, there are a couple places where blocks of material are missing from older manuscripts, notably the last 12 verses of Mark. and the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8, those blocks of material are missing from the oldest manuscripts, which has raised questions about whether they are part of the original or not. But apart from a couple of well-known cases, the differences between manuscripts are extremely small and insignificant, which means that nothing is being changed. I mean, some words are being changed. But no meanings are being changed. There are no doctrines being changed. So, yeah, the King James is the result of several earlier English translations being revised to become, in 1611, the King James Version, the Authorized Version. But that was not the end of revision because it was not the end of discovery. We have found many more manuscripts, too. But although revision continues… And by the way, I’ve read some of the most modern translations, and I’ve read the King James many, many times through. It was the Bible I used to teach from when I taught through the Bible the first ten times or so. You know, so I’m very familiar with the King James. I’m also very familiar with the modern translations, and they are different in some ways, but not in any way that’s slightly, not even slightly alarming. You know, it’s not as if somehow we’ve lost the meaning of the passages. As I say, there’s a couple of passages. that are maybe 10 or 12 verses at most long, only two of them in the whole Bible, that seem to be questionable as to whether they are original. But with or without those passages, we still have the same message in the whole Bible. So it’s not as if every paragraph in the Bible is indispensable, and if we lost it, it would then mean we don’t have any idea what Jesus is about or what God has to say about things. So, yeah, the Bible does go through revision. We shouldn’t worry about that. We might be concerned if we found that there were originally several different versions in the original languages that were quite different from each other. That would be an issue. But… You know, the English revisions are attempts at bringing up to date the English Bible in terms of the scholarship that we now have, the discoveries that we now have. All right. Thank you, Howard. Let’s see here. Greg in Indianapolis, Indiana. Welcome to the Neuropath. Greg, are you there?
SPEAKER 07 :
Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Greg, are you there?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yep, I’m here.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, you’re very faint. You’re not very loud. Are you on a speakerphone or something?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, can you hear me now?
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s better. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. I just had a question in regards to it seems what’s the proof in the Bible where the devil is basically Satan is trying to I guess pull other people to his faith.
SPEAKER 03 :
What is the evidence that the devil is trying to pull people his direction?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, in other words, if I’m trying to do good, then he lied and said I did something bad only to have other people believe that. And then all of a sudden they say, oh, you know, he’s a hellion. He’s going to get the same fate. I mean, word doesn’t say in the Bible I’m going to get the same fate because he lied on me.
SPEAKER 03 :
I don’t understand what… I don’t think the Bible talks about you personally getting the same fate as some other person. I don’t understand the example you’re giving.
SPEAKER 07 :
Again, in other words, I used to hear what people always say, well, don’t let them trick you, don’t let them deceive you, but to deceive you and pull you into his fate. In other words, make you do some of the same things he does. And so…
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, okay, the devil is the tester, okay? And his whole, the word Satan is from the Hebrew word that means adversary, okay? So he’s your enemy. And he’s God’s enemy. And so right from the very beginning, the first time he interacted with human beings in the Garden of Eden, he was there to draw them away from God. God was looking for pretty much one thing from the people he created, and that was Loyalty, you know, loyalty to him. He made people to rule the world. That’s what he said he made them for, to give them dominion over everything he’d made. But he couldn’t trust them with that responsibility until they had been tested and vetted and shown themselves to be loyal. And they showed themselves disloyal, which meant that we do not yet see all things put under man, the Bible says. We will, but it’s not yet seen. Because man was not loyal. Now, some people are loyal. It’s just that Adam and Eve were not. Of their children, some of them have been loyal to God and some have not. Now, the devil’s still out there trying to cause us to be unloyal to God. He’s trying to resist what God wants. And so he tries to tempt us to not believe God, not to love God, not to trust God, not to obey God. And that’s what the devil’s business is. Now, one of the main things the Bible says the devil is about is deception. Jesus said he’s a liar and the father of lies. And in Revelation, it talks about the dragon is the one who deceives the whole world. Satan and the devil, he’s called there in Revelation 12. I think it’s verse 9. But we see then that the devil is a deceiver. And that’s the way he gets most of us into trouble. He deceives us about God. about their being a God. Some people don’t believe there’s a God. Well, they’ve been deceived about that. Some people believe there is a God, but they believe he’s a selfish, angry, unlovable God. Well, if people can be falsely convinced of that, the devil’s won some points because he’s prevented them from wanting to be followers of God and loyal to God. And then, of course, he tries to let people believe, he tries to deceive people into thinking that going a different way than the way that God tells them to. It’s going to be more rewarding. They’ll be glad they did if they do that. And they won’t have any regrets. That’s what he told Adam and Eve. You eat that fruit that God told you not to. Yeah, he just doesn’t want you to have the best things. He doesn’t want you to be like him. So, you know, basically saying eating that fruit is actually good for you. which is the same thing as if the devil tells us, hey, go out and lie, go out and steal, go out and fornicate, go out and, you know, do sinful things. Yeah, that’ll make you happier. That’ll be more rewarding to you than being obedient. So the devil’s just, you know, he’s a deceiver. And does the Bible teach it? Everywhere. I mean, every time the Bible mentions the devil, he’s the bad guy. He’s the one who’s opposing God and opposing those who are trying to be loyal to God. So… It’s kind of a generic teaching of the Bible. We see, you know, in the oldest book of the Bible, which is Job, we see God trying to get Job to deny God by doing harm to him and his family. So that’s just the career that the devil has. At the very end of the Bible in Revelation chapter 20, We see the devil going out to deceive the whole world again after he’s been bound for a while. So, again, this is from Genesis to Revelation and all the points in between. The devil is always described as the one who’s the adversary of God. And as the adversary, he’s trying to persuade those that God is seeking to have a relationship with and that he’s seeking to entrust with responsibility if they’re loyal. The devil’s trying to interfere with their loyalty, trying to convince them not to be loyal. So that’s, I mean, it’s not just a verse of the scripture somewhere. It’s like the whole teaching of the whole Bible whenever we encounter Satan. All right. Let’s talk to Rez in the Bay Area in California. Rez, welcome.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hey, Steve. Thanks for your tireless work. I appreciate it. I had a question regarding a verse, and then I was wondering if you could, Let me know if I understand it correctly. So you have two Christians, two types of Christians. You have one Christian that can look at something and he sees evil in it. Maybe he watches a movie and he just notices, oh, there’s that symbol and there’s this and that and Satan here, Satan there. Then you have another, he just sees evil. He doesn’t see that. You know, he’s just, maybe you call it oblivious to it, but there was, you know, the faith that I came from, you know, the devil was everywhere. We weren’t allowed to dance or play checkers or anywhere.
SPEAKER 03 :
But, Rez, you said you were interested in my take on a verse of Scripture.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So this verse has helped me out. I was wondering if you could tell me if I understand it correctly. So Titus 1.15 is kind of, allowed me to be okay with having my views change and not feel like I need to see evil everywhere. So I was wondering if you feel like that verse applies.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, what Paul says is, to the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, but even their mind and their conscience is defiled. this is, of course, not a universal statement or absolute statement that, for example, if I’m a pure man, then I can go out and rob a bank and it’s still a pure. Actually, I can go out and be with a prostitute and that’s still pure because I’m pure because to the pure all things are pure. He’s not saying that. He’s essentially talking in the context of his general teaching that if you’re a righteous person, you don’t need the law to tell you the laws of purification. Purification laws were the laws that said that Jews could not eat certain kinds of animals. They were unclean. They couldn’t, you know, if you had leprosy or if you had, if a woman had her period or if a person had touched a dead body, they were impure. They were defiled according to the law. And, you know, Paul’s view, following Jesus, is that those kinds of things don’t make you impure. If you are inwardly pure, if your heart is pure, then, you know, all states, all foods, you know, whatever you touch, it’s not going to defile you. You know, all things are going to be pure to you. He’s not saying, however, that if you’re morally pure, you can go out and do morally impure things. Because, frankly… if you do morally impure things, you’re not morally pure. I mean, why would you do them? If you’re in your heart pure, you wouldn’t go out and do things that are impure. He’s indicating that the Christian life focuses on inward purity, not external purity. And although the Jews would say, well, you know, a leper or a person who’s touched a dead body, they are impure, they’re unclean, impure. I think Paul’s saying, no, not if they are inwardly pure. They’re not unclean. And that’s what Jesus said about certain foods. He said it’s not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him, meaning unclean foods won’t defile you or make you impure. But what comes out of your mouth makes you impure or at least declares your impurity because out of your mouth come the things from your heart. And those evils that come out of your heart are what make you impure, not the things you eat or touch. So I think that’s what Paul’s talking about. He’s not saying that sin is pure if you happen to be pure. He’s saying that things that are, you know, ritually defiling are not an issue to people who are inwardly pure because God isn’t judging by those things anymore. Listen, I need to take a break, but I appreciate your call. 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 write to us, our address is thenarrowpath.org. P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away. We have another half hour.
SPEAKER 01 :
If you enjoy the Narrow Path radio program, you’d really like the resources at our website, thenarrowpath.com, where hundreds of biblical lectures and messages by our host, Steve Gregg, can be accessed without charge and listened to at your convenience. If you have not done so, visit the website, thenarrowpath.com, and discover all that is available for your learning pleasure.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour. Taking your calls, I’m looking at two open lines on our switchboard. That means if you call right now, you can get on there and probably almost certainly be on the program before we’re done today. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or disagreement with the host, we’d love to hear from you. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. All right, our next caller today is Matt calling from Arlington, Texas. Hi, Matt. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you for having me on. I wanted to read Matthew 24, 15. Jesus said, When you therefore shall see… the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand. I wanted to get your opinion on the abomination and desolation, if I could.
SPEAKER 03 :
Sure. Well, fortunately, we don’t have this passage alone of this statement because there’s two other parallels to it. This is in what we call the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24. But the same discourse with the same prophecies are found in Mark 13 and notably in Luke 21. And the reason I say notably is because Luke, more than Mark and Matthew, is fond of paraphrasing things Jesus said, because Luke is writing to a Greek guy named Theophilus. Now, we don’t know anything about Theophilus, except his name is Greek, and he’s almost certainly not a Jewish guy. And Luke was not a Jew either, so he’s a Gentile writing to another Gentile. Now, Matthew and Mark were both Jews, And Matthew, at least, was writing to the Jews. And Mark, you know, Mark was just, he followed fairly closely Matthew’s way of looking at things. But the thing is that Jesus used a lot of Hebraic idioms, which the average Gentile would not make any sense of. There’s a lot of Hebraism in the Old Testament because it’s a Hebrew book. And Jesus and his disciples spoke a version of Hebrew called Aramaic. And they used a lot of the same idioms that the Jews used because that was their culture. Now, a term like the abomination of desolation is definitely a Hebraic idiom. I mean, it doesn’t make sense in itself unless you are familiar with it from the Bible and from its context. Now, three times Daniel mentioned an abomination. that maketh desolate, which is what is also called the abomination of desolation. An abomination, generally speaking, is something that’s usually idols in the Old Testament, but not always. Anything that was offensive to God in the Bible was an abomination. Now, abomination of desolation means I believe is coming from Daniel 9, verse 27, which is the first of three times that this term is used in Daniel. And in Daniel 9, verse 27, it says, On the wing of abominations shall come one that makes desolate. So this is an abomination that makes desolate. Makes what desolate? In the context, actually, it has talked about the Messiah being cut off. And then, like the previous verse says, and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Now, this was fulfilled when Jesus came. He was killed. And shortly after that, within the same generation, some of the people were still alive. The people of the prince who came and destroyed the city, which was Jerusalem, and the sanctuary, which is the temple. That happened in 70 A.D. And that, I believe, is what Daniel’s referring to in Daniel 9, 27, when he says, on the wing of abominations, there shall be one that makes desolate. Now, when Jesus said, you know, when you see the abomination of desolation, now he’s talking, by the way, to four men. We know this because in Mark chapter 13, when he has the parallel, it says that Peter and James and John and Andrew came to him privately after he had spoken of the destruction of the temple. this sermon begins by Jesus predicting that not one stone of the temple, which was standing at that time, not one stone will be left standing on another. It’s going to be dismantled completely. And in Mark’s version of this, it says that Peter and James and John and Andrew came to Jesus privately and said, when will this be? And what sign will there be that this is about to take place, that these things are going to happen? So, Jesus predicted the temple would be destroyed. They were curious. When is that going to happen? Will there be some sign that tells us it’s about to happen before it does? And he gives this long talk. Now, in all three Gospels, of course, he gives answers to both questions. The first answer to the question, you know, when shall these things be? His answer is, this generation will not pass before these things happen. They said, when shall these things be? Well, this generation won’t have until these things have happened. So it’s in this generation sometime. Now, he was right on the money there because it happened 40 years after he said it. That’s within that generation. The other thing they ask is, what sign will there be? And that’s where Matthew and Mark’s version have Jesus saying, when you see the abomination of desolation, know that it is near. So that’s the sign you’re looking for. And so it was something the disciples would see in their generation. a sign that would warn them that the temple was about to be destroyed. Now, Luke, who’s writing to a Greek who doesn’t probably know very much about the Hebrew figures of speech, but Luke does. Luke is clarifying it, and he paraphrases a number of Jesus’ things in his gospel for the sake of his reader, who would not easily understand them otherwise. But here’s when Jesus said, when you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, or standing where it ought not, you flee to the mountains. Here’s how that statement is paraphrased by Luke. In Luke 21, 20, this is the same statement, same point, and the same discourse. And the paraphrase in Luke is, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains and so forth. He says the same thing that you find in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, with the exception that instead of using the term abomination of desolation, when you see the abomination of desolation, he says, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is near. So that’s the sign that these things are about to take place. That was their other question. And so he tells them this will happen in this generation. And you’ll see a sign of it in what he called, using the Hebrew idiom, the abomination of desolation. But as I said, I believe that that is taken from Daniel 9, 27, where in the context, I believe it’s talking about the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.
SPEAKER 1 :
70.
SPEAKER 03 :
And so when Jesus said, when you see the abomination of desolation as spoken by Daniel the prophet, then flee to the mountains. Well, that’s the words Jesus used. But since Theophilus might not understand those kind of strange expressions, Luke makes it very plain. When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then it’s desolation is coming. So the abomination that’s going to cause desolation to Jerusalem is the Roman armies coming. And they’re, you know, in the holy place. They were in the holy land. And they were in Jerusalem. And they came into the temple eventually. So this is what I understand to be the meaning of the abomination of desolation. It’s a Hebraism for the gathering armies of the pagans who came to destroy the holy place, the temple, and Jerusalem. Hello?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah. Oh, can I… Can I add to that?
SPEAKER 03 :
If you wish, go ahead.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, I don’t really agree with what you’re saying there, because it’s the generation that sees those signs.
SPEAKER 03 :
Where does it say that?
SPEAKER 06 :
The great earthquakes and all those things that Jesus, I don’t believe it was talking about that generation. It was the ones that see the signs, the end time generation, because Jesus didn’t come back then.
SPEAKER 03 :
I used to take that view myself.
SPEAKER 06 :
Coming didn’t come then.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I know it didn’t. I know it didn’t. But that’s not the defining issue. The question of what does this generation mean? I was taught, as you apparently have been taught, that this is talking about some future generation from Jesus’ time, not his times. But the generation that will see the fig tree blossom, which we were told refers to the establishment of Israel in the end times. Now, notably, Jesus makes no reference anywhere to an establishment of Israel in the end times. The fig tree statement, it does not make any reference to Israel. And when he says this generation will not pass, this is actually the fifth time in Matthew that he has used the term this generation. Actually, I think this is the sixth time. There’s five or six times in Matthew that he used the term this generation. In all the previous times, he was speaking about his own generation. And that’s what his readers would naturally understand. If I say this generation won’t pass, anyone listening to me is going to think I’m talking about this generation instead of, let’s say, some other one, which I’d call that generation. You know, if I was talking about some future generation that’s going to see something that, you know, in the end of time, it’s not this generation, I should refer to it as, you know, that generation will not pass because it’s not this one. So I disagree with you, though I once agreed with you. I mean, in fact, I used to teach what you’re saying.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, you know, the question was, what shall be the sign of the coming and the end of the world?
SPEAKER 03 :
End of the age. In the Greek, it’s the end of the age, yeah.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, it’s the world in this.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, hang on, just a minute. Yeah, I don’t go by the King James, although I’d rather go by the Greek, since that’s the way the Bible’s written. Jesus said, the disciples in Matthew 24.3, they asked these questions. When shall these things be? Which is, of course, the destruction of the temple. And what shall be the sign of, and they say two things, your coming and the end of the Aion, age. Yeah, the King James is the end of the world, but the Greek word is the age. So what’s the end of the age? Well, I believe the destruction of the temple was the end of the Jewish age. It was the end of Second Temple Judaism, the whole age that they and all their ancestors had lived in for 1,400 years, a millennium and a half. That age came to an end. From the time the temple or the tabernacle was built in the time of Moses, and then the temple by Solomon, and then the end of temple Judaism, that age came to an end with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. And we can see it ended because it hasn’t come back. It’s been 2,000 years now, which is longer than the whole period of that age lasted. Now, what about the sign of your coming? Well, there’s a good question there. Is he talking about the second coming? Well, certainly the words could mean that in certain contexts, but they don’t appear to mean that in this context. Because, as I said, both Mark and Luke parallel this. And they read the disciples’ question this way. What is the sign of your coming? No, no, I mean, sorry. What is the sign that these things are about to take place? Now, here’s the thing. Jesus said, not one stone is going to be left standing on the temple. They’re all going to be thrown down. And they have, in Mark and in Luke, it’s two questions. When will these things be? And what sign will there be that these things, the same things, are about to take place? In other words, Mark and Luke’s version doesn’t even mention his coming. But there’s a reason possibly for that, because in Matthew’s writing, to a Jewish audience. There’s not a Bible scholar in the world that doubts that, because that’s what we’re told by the church fathers, that Matthew wrote originally in Aramaic, and he wrote for a Jewish audience, and he’s the only gospel writer who did. But Matthew retains, again, the idioms they used. What did they mean by your coming at the end of the age? Well, if we say, well, they meant his second coming, I’m going to have to ask, where did they get any idea there’s going to be a second coming? They didn’t even know he was going. We, since Jesus left, a couple of angels said, well, he’s going to come again. And now we know there’s going to be a second coming. The disciples didn’t know there’s going to be a second coming because they didn’t know there’s going to be a leaving. They thought he was here. They thought the Messiah was here and he was going to set up his kingdom. Even after he rose from the dead, they asked him, will you at this time, you know, restore the kingdom to Israel? They’re still thinking he’s going to be there. They don’t know he’s going away until he does. And then the announcement was made to them of this same Jesus that you saw go, he’s going to come back again. And like manners, you saw him go in Acts 1-11. So, in other words, I don’t think the disciples had in their mind what we think of at all when we say the coming of the Lord. Because we’re always thinking of the second coming because his first coming is behind us. To them, the Messiah had come. But what did it mean for his coming? Well, he talked about the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, in the Hebrew scriptures, the destruction of a nation by God through armies was commonly referred to as God coming. Not literally coming. Not like we expect there’s literal coming at the end of the age, which I do. But the expression of God coming in the Old Testament. normally did not refer to what we’re thinking of, did not refer to the second coming of Christ, or even a literal coming of God at all. It was a figure of speech that meant he’s coming through the agency of invaders. A really good example of that, it’s the first one that always comes to mind, though there are others, is Isaiah 19.1. In Isaiah 19, Isaiah is predicting that Egypt is going to fall to the Assyrians, which it did, like in the 8th century B.C. And the prediction about this is found in Isaiah 19.1, which says, The Lord rides on a swift cloud and will come to Egypt. Now, it talks about God coming on a cloud, just like Jesus talked about himself coming on a cloud. And it says, the Lord will come on a swift cloud to Egypt. And then it goes on and describes the Assyrian invasion. Because when one nation conquers another nation in the Old Testament, if it is seen as God’s judgment, and generally speaking it is, then it is spoken of God doing it. God has come. He’s come against Egypt. He didn’t show up. Like we know Jesus will someday. But he came by proxy through armies that he sent, that he brought out. So the disciples, I mean, I don’t know if they’d ever heard any other use of the expression of God coming than in that sense, which is used frequently in the Old Testament. But I’m pretty sure… They didn’t have any expectation of Christ’s second coming since they would have to know what we know, which they didn’t at that point, and that is that he went away. They didn’t know he was going away, and they didn’t know there needed to be another coming. So, you know, you’re right. Matthew reads their question to say, what shall be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? But, in my opinion, it probably means you’re coming in judgment through the armies of Rome to destroy the temple, which you just predicted. Now, The reason I think that’s got a lot of strength to it is because when Mark and Luke both paraphrase what the disciples say, they take that last sentence, what will be the sign of your coming in the end of the age, they render it what shall be the sign that these things, which is the destruction of the temple, are about to take place. So if you read Mark and Luke, and for some reason didn’t have Matthew, you would recognize that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, and the disciples asked two things about it. When will it be, and what sign will there be that it’s about to take place? Matthew tells us that the actual words they used, using the Jewish idioms, were, when will these things be, and what shall be the sign of your coming, which apparently means your judgment upon Jerusalem in this context, and of the end of the age, the temple age, the destruction of the temple would end the Second Temple Judaism age. And they knew the new covenant was coming through Christ, and so they just saw that’d be the end of the old. And I don’t think they were wrong. But I can appreciate the fact that that’s difficult for you to see that way because it wasn’t like the easiest thing in the world for me to see it. I had to become quite familiar with the Old Testament prophets before I could make sense of it this way. But Jesus spoke to people who were very familiar with the Old Testament prophets and very familiar with the language they used. And he used the same language the prophets did to a Jewish audience who were quite familiar with it. Unfortunately, we in America, very few Christians read the prophets or pay much attention to them. And most Christians who read the prophets find them very difficult because they have those very Hebraisms that they use, which made it confusing to Gentiles in the first century too. And it makes it confusing to Gentile readers today. You pretty much have to become… well-versed in the Old Testament prophets to recognize the kind of idioms they used, which show up in Jesus’ teaching as well. So, I mean, we’re probably going to just disagree about that, and that’s all right. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing. It makes life interesting. But I appreciate your call, Matt. I need to take another call if I can or two before we’re done here, and we’re almost done. So, Eddie from Sacramento, California, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. I heard your last call, and we’re all idiots.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, we’re all ignorant of certain things. We’re not all idiots, per se. But, yeah, we don’t have much time. We don’t have much time, so give me your question, if you would.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, thank you for taking my call. About Revelation, why hasn’t anybody made a movie about Revelation?
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, many movies have been made about Revelation. Dispensationalists love to make movies about Revelation. Back when I was a teenager, there was a series of three movies. I forget their names now, but they were commonplace household word names at the time. The Thief in the Night was one of them, and Distant Thunder was another one. And I think it was All the King’s Horses or something like that was the third one. Those were made in the 70s based on the dispensational view of Revelation. And then much more recently, of course, we’ve got the Left Behind movies. Those are based on Revelation also. The problem is, you know, the only movies I’ve ever seen based on Revelation are based on the future’s view of Revelation, which is too bad because a growing number of evangelicals are recognizing that. It’s not a book that was intended to be understood that way. It was a recognizably apocalyptic book in its day. And the book of Revelation itself, John told the readers several times, and they lived in the first century, said these things are shortly going to take place. The time is at hand. John the Soul, don’t seal up the book because the time is at hand. So if the book of Revelation is telling the truth, it said that those things were going to happen soon after the book was written. And I believe they did. But, you know, the movies about Revelation don’t seem to recognize that. Hey, I appreciate your calling. I’m going to try to get one more in here. Earl from Eugene, Oregon. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. I have a comment on one of your previous callers about the King James Version. I went to a lecture at a Christian college. This minister is retired. He had a collection of all the different versions of the King James Version. And mostly these are… printer’s error that crept in. He had like a whole big room full of display and I got to look at all the different ones and what happens is the version in 1769 kind of standardized it and that’s what you basically get off the shelf the one in 1769. Now, in 1873, a scholar wanted to take all the different versions and correct them and try to get back to the 1611 version, and he did a pretty good job. It’s called the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, but After that, 1885, the American Standard Version for British came out in 1900, the ASV, and then they kind of forgot about that. You can’t get his anymore, although I have one because Sondervan had a special version. But you can get the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which is exactly the same thing. The main difference is the Cambridge Paragraph Bible has the little paragraph markers on through the New Testament. The New one puts it in paragraph format and also has notes on it. the original notes on the margins. So I thought your readers might be interested. If they really want to get the original 1600 one, go for the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, and it came out, I think, in 2005, and that’s the best they can do.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, that might be interesting for people who like to collect antiquarian books, right? I mean, if you’re making a collection. Is it your opinion that the King James Version is like the best English version available?
SPEAKER 05 :
For Protestants, yes. Catholics are different. For English-speaking Protestants, I think the King James Version is the best one, and we can deal with whatever problems they have because they’re known. I use the King James Version. When I quote from it, I quote from the software, the 1769 version. Not only if I know what the 1873 is, then I’ll put that, like, When it says on the shelf, a woman should dress with shamefacedness, the correct one says shamefastness, which word is dropped out of our vocabulary because of the King James, shamefacedness.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, we certainly don’t use the name, the word shamefastness, but I’m not really sure many people use the word shamefacedness either. I think it’s a very interesting English word. I just think it’s a little archaic. And I, you know, I don’t think it’s a bad word. I just think most people don’t know what it means. But once you Once you think about what it’s talking about, it actually is quite a descriptive word. It just means, of course, extreme modesty, you know. But, yeah, you know, I like the King James Version. I’m not a King James only, and I’m not even using the King James right now. When I’m on the air, I use the new King James these days. And I’m not against some of the newer versions than that. But, yeah, I think the King James is fine. For many years, I taught from the King James Version. Not because I was King James only. I was not. I’ve never felt that King James was the only Bible, but it was the one I grew up with. It was the one I learned from initially, and it’s the one I taught from for many years. I’d say for the first 12, probably first 12, 13, 14 years of my ministry, I used the King James. But I began to, I mean, I knew, I mean, even when I began in the ministry, I knew that a don’t mean anything to modern readers. But like you said, while teaching it, you can correct it. You know, like the word conversation in the King James Version really is a word from the Greek word that means behavior. Now, conversation meant behavior back when the King James was written. But since then, behavior and conversation have very different meanings in modern English. So you won’t find any modern version that uses the word conversation. to translate that particular word. They’ll always say behavior or conduct. So, I mean, they do have to be updated a little bit, at least if not in printing new versions. You know, when you’re using the King James, you have to kind of clarify that some of these words, they’ve changed in meaning. The English has changed in meaning. And so, but I was not, I had no problem with that. I never had any problem reading or teaching from the King James, I would make the corrections on the fly, as I felt they needed to be clarified. But eventually, what I found, and if this isn’t true of you, then it’s fine. It doesn’t have to be. But a lot of my students, these were young adults coming to my school, they really had trouble with the Old English. People always said, I just can’t understand all those these and those, which I thought was kind of silly. I’d say, well, that’s easy. The and thou means you. OK, so now we can read it. Right. Just recognize that means you. But of course, a lot of words end with TH in the King James Version. And it’s just we’ve got people who are fairly illiterate in modern English and they really found it a challenge to read the King James. So I switched over to the New King James Version. because it’s really quite close to the King James, but it doesn’t have those archaic words. Anyway, yeah, I’m not against the King James. I’m just not sure it’s the best one to use with younger people. Maybe. We’re out of time. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg. We are listener-supported. If you’d like to help us out, go to our website. Everything there is free, and there’s thousands of resources you can download for free. Or you can donate there at thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
