Menu
Join us in this intriguing episode of The Narrow Path as Steve Gregg tackles complex theological questions and debates surrounding Isaiah’s vision of the new heavens and earth. Through listener calls and reflective discussion, Steve delves deep into the Scriptures to explore the distinctions between Old Testament predictions and New Testament revelations. This episode offers insightful perspectives on eschatology and the true essence of what is often seen as metaphorical biblical language.
SPEAKER 1 :
This is the first time I have ever seen a bird in the sky. This is the first time I have ever seen a bird in the sky. This is the first time I have ever seen a bird in the sky. This is the first time I have ever seen a bird in the sky. This is the first time I have ever seen a bird in the sky.
SPEAKER 05 :
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 taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we’d love to hear from you. You can call in. We’ll talk about it on the air. You can disagree with the host if you want to. We’ll be glad to take your call on the air as well. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And our lines are filling up. Looks like there’s maybe one line open. I did receive just before the program a text message, which I don’t always put the – when people write in questions, I don’t always put them ahead of the callers. I usually wait until we have a break in the calls. But this was very timely because this is, you know, a week or so ago when I was debating Dr. Brown. One of the weakest points, I think, in my presentation was when he asked me about Isaiah 65, 20, or just 65, 17 and following. And that was about the new heavens and the new earth. And my position was, that the new heavens and new earth in Isaiah are not referring to the same new heavens and new earth that we find in Revelation in 2 Peter 3. Now, that seems very counterintuitive. You would think that 2 Peter 3 and Revelation, if they speak about a new heaven and new earth, that they are referring to the same passage that mentions that in the Old Testament, that they’re quoting or alluding to it. Well, I do think there’s an allusion to it, but I think we have to understand that… There are things in eschatology that I believe are going to happen literally, like, for example, the second coming of Jesus, but which are spoken of figuratively, that is to say, the language of his coming. is not always referring to the second coming. As when Jesus said, there are some of you standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his glory. Obviously, he wasn’t talking about his second coming, but the language is the same as that of the second coming. Also, of course, the Bible talks about how if we have heard the voice of God and believed in Jesus, that we have passed from death out of life. That is, we’ve resurrected, we were dead in trespasses and sins, and we’ve come alive. But that’s spiritual. But later, eschatologically, there’s going to be a physical resurrection. In other words, there are times when something is described which has a spiritual reality right now, but which will also have a literal reality when Jesus comes back, and which is spoken of in both cases in similar language. So my thought is, my belief is that Peter, in 2 Peter 3, when he mentions the new heavens and new earth, in 2 Peter 3.13, and Revelation, when it talks about the new heavens, new earth in Revelation 21, that it is, that’s a literal thing that we’re still looking forward to to be inaugurated at the second coming of Christ. But that Isaiah, when he mentions new heaven or new earth, is not necessarily talking about that, but the spiritual precursor to that. Now remember in Hebrews chapter 6 and verse 5, it says that we who are Christians… have already tasted of the powers of the age to come. Now, that age to come is still the age to come, but we’ve tasted of it, we’ve gotten a spiritual foretaste of it, and there’s, in a sense, a spiritual reality which has its physical reality at the second coming of Christ. just like some of the other examples I mentioned. Now, in my opinion, and I wouldn’t take this opinion if I wasn’t compelled to, I believe, because it would be simpler not to. And, by the way, when I said this at the debate, I didn’t have time to explain it. I didn’t have time to say more about it, but I felt very much like that was seen as That’s probably the weakest point I made, although it’s not necessarily the weakest once it’s explained. But in a debate, you can’t explain everything. Now, today I got a question that’s related to it. And the questioner has asked me, what do you do? He says, how do you get around pushback on Isaiah 65, 20? He says, I’ve been hit with that a lot from my dispensational friends. Well, okay, Isaiah 65.20 is, of course, part of the passage about the new heavens and the new earth in Isaiah. It begins in verse 17, three verses before the verse he’s asking about. And in Isaiah 65.17, it says, For behold, I create new heavens. and new earth. The former shall not come to be remembered or come to mind. Now, this, I think, Paul is alluding to in 2 Corinthians when he says, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things are passed away. All things become new. You start with a spiritual reality, the new creation, which is, I think, in Isaiah referred to as a new heaven and new earth, because the first creation in Genesis 1.1, God created the heavens and the earth. The new creation, as it were, is given an imagery of making a new heaven, a new earth, a new creation, and that the former things will be passed away. Well, that’s true spiritually speaking for us, too. Then it goes on, it says, but be glad and rejoice forever in what I create, meaning the new creation. For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing and her people a joy. Now, I understand this to be a new covenant reality. If anyone is in Christ, he’s a new creation. He’s also in the new Jerusalem because it says in Hebrews chapter 12 and verse 22 that we have come. We who are Christians have already come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, to the city of God, which he calls the general assembly and church of the firstborn who were written in heaven. So the church is referred to in the New Testament as the heavenly Jerusalem, the Mount Zion. And that’s what I think is referred to here. It’s talking about the new covenant reality. I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing and her people a joy. He says, I will rejoice in Jerusalem and joy in my people. The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, nor the voice of crying. No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, nor an old man, now this is verse 20, who has not fulfilled his days. For the child shall die 100 years old, but the sinner being 100 years old shall be accursed. And it goes on. Now, the questioner asked if I would talk about this verse 20, because many people feel like this is a pretty strong argument for the millennial position. And I’ve always wondered why that would be so, because when I believed in a future millennium, I never found this an easy verse at all. And now I don’t believe in a future millennium. I still don’t find it an easy verse. I just think there’s a great deal about this verse that is strangely worded. difficult to know how it applies or what it actually means, and then more how it applies to the whole context of the new heavens and the new earth. Now, let me say this. There are three different ways that this section of Isaiah has been taken. Maybe the most popular way is the way that the Schofield Reference Bible, the dispensationalist view, holds it, because the Schofield Reference Bible puts subtitles over certain verses in Scripture. These subtitles are not in the Hebrew text. They’re just added by Schofield in order to… direct the thoughts of his readers where he wants them to be directed. And over verse 17, we’re talking about Isaiah 65, 17. Over verse 17, Schofield says, the new heavens and the new earth. And here’s what the verse says. Behold, I create new heavens and new earth. The former shall not be remembered nor come to mind. Well, that’s fair enough. That’s the new heavens and the new earth. But then over the next verse, it says the millennial kingdom. And then it goes on verse, but be glad and rejoice forever in what I create, blah, blah, blah. And so verse 20 to the dispensationalists is describing circumstances in the millennium. Now, this is the first of three possible ways to see this passage. And it doesn’t make much sense because the only reference to the millennium is in the note that Schofield added to the text. There’s no mention of a millennium in this passage. There is mention of new heavens and new earth. Now, by the way, Schofield and dispensationalists, would agree that the millennium is not the same thing as the new heavens and the new earth. They believe, going chronologically through the end of Revelation, that the millennium happens after Jesus comes back. And then after the millennium, the heavens and the earth pass away, and there’s a new heaven and new earth. So the millennium, they believe, is a thousand years that falls between the second coming of Christ and the actual destruction and remaking of the universe. So there’s Jesus comes back. There’s a thousand year millennium. Then there’s a new heavens, new earth. So the millennium and the new heavens, new earth are not considered the same thing in the dispensational system. Yet Schofield, for some reason. thinks that verse 17 is about the new heavens and new earth, and that verse 18 and following are not about that, but they’re about the millennium, though there’s been no suggestion of this anywhere in the text. And dispensationalists virtually always take these verses after verse 17 to be about the millennial kingdom. And so they apply Revelation 20, I mean, 65, 20 to it, where it says, No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, nor an old man who is not fulfilled his days. For a child shall die 100 years old, but the sinner being 100 years old shall be accursed. Now, the premillennial view holds that this is during the millennium, that people live a lot longer than they do now. that if a person dies at 100 years old, he’ll still be an infant because people will live so long that 100 years old is mere infancy. That’s what they think it is saying. Now, why these people will live so long or how long they actually do live is never suggested. It’s just not that this verse is saying people will live a really long time, so much so that a 100-year-old is still essentially counted an infant. Okay, well, I don’t have a problem with that particular interpretation of verse 20, though I don’t see why they’d apply it to the millennium when the text does not. The text applies it to the new heavens and the new earth. However, if it’s not about the literal new heavens and new earth, we have a problem. Because in the new heavens and new earth, according to Revelation, there’s no more death, no more crying, no more sickness. It is clearly after the resurrection of the dead, and there will be no more dying after that. So if it is, in fact, the new heavens and the new earth, you’re not going to have people dying at 100 years old or any other age. which means that this would not literally be applicable. And that might be why Schofield and others have decided, well, I guess we’ve moved away from talking about the new heavens and new earth here, and we’re talking about something else. So let’s make this the millennium, though the text does not. The truth is that if this is the literal future new heavens and new earth, it’s talking about death happening, Regardless how late it happens in life, it’s still death, whereas in the new heavens, new earth and the new Jerusalem, there is no death. Now, we are talking about the people who are in the new Jerusalem because it says no more shall an infant from there. Now, from where? The previous verse talks about, I will rejoice in Jerusalem. And the voice of weeping will no longer be heard in her. That is in Jerusalem. And an infant from there will not die a few days old. But, you know, so it is talking about saved people here. In the millennium, if there was such a thing, the premillennialist believes that the saved people will be in immortal bodies. When Jesus comes back, he raises the righteous immortal. And then in the premillennial view, these people go in their immortal bodies into a thousand-year reign. But if this is referring to that thousand-year reign, how are their babies, how are they dying at 100 years old if they’re immortal? They won’t be having children either, by the way, because Jesus said in the resurrection they don’t marry and are not given in marriage. So, you know, how is this going to be the millennium? If the righteous are here said to die at a certain age and there’s children, you know, where are they coming from? Now, I don’t believe that this is about a future millennium, of course. And I don’t believe it’s talking about the future new heavens, new earth, although Peter and Revelation do speak of such. One of my reasons for thinking this is because Isaiah chapter 60 through 66, that is the last seven chapters of the book of Isaiah, this is a treasure trove of passages for New Testament writers to quote. I have made a list of 15 verses from this section of Isaiah, chapter 60 through 66. It’s the closing section of the book. There are at least 15 verses in this section that New Testament writers quote and apply to their own time. And then there’s another five verses in this area that are quoted in the book of Revelation. But that’s another story. The point here is that of this section, 15 verses can be called from these seven chapters. On average, that’s more than two verses per chapter that the New Testament writers apply without apology to the New Testament age that they are living in. They apply it to their own time. Now, that tells me that if the New Testament writers were not mistaken, this section of Isaiah is not talking about eschatology. It’s talking about the church age. Yes, it’s written in poetry. Yes, it uses strange imagery and strange metaphors and strange hyperbole. This is what poetry does, by the way. This is all written in poetry. And therefore, you don’t take it literally, but it’s more impressionistic. That’s what poetry does. Poetry tries to give you an impression rather than, strictly speaking, information. If there is information, it is given in a form that is impressionistic. And I believe that’s true here. I believe the new heavens and new earth in this chapter refer to the new covenant. If it was in Christ, he is a new creation. And these things are all spiritual, and that’s exactly how they’re taken by the New Testament writers, if you would check that out. Now, that means when you come to verse 20, it’s still worded in a weird way, and it’s still something hard to know exactly what it’s referring to. But it’s in that context of the New Covenant era, I believe. And when it says, “…no more shall an infant from there live but a few days, nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days.” What is that really saying? It says a child shall die 100 years old, but the sinner being 100 years old shall be accursed. Well, the sinner, you know, if he lives 100 years old, he’s not any better off. But it seems to be saying sort of what the dispensationalists are saying, but not about a millennium. It seems to be kind of figuratively talking about people having a really long life. Now, in the New Testament, we’re told that we have eternal life. You know, it says, you know, in a number of places that we have eternal life. John 5, 24 being one of those says, Jesus said, here’s my words and words. believes in him who sent me, has eternal life. Okay, we’ve passed from death unto life. We have eternal life. Now, People with eternal life don’t really die at all in the sense that they’re eternally alive. But this is, I believe, impressionistic. I believe it’s giving the impression of very long life. Now, really long life can actually end up being forever, in which case dying at 100 years old and still being an infant is not literal. It would be saying it’s as if if you did die at 100 years old, you’d still be an infant because you’re just getting started. At 100 years old, you’re still just getting started because eternity is long. And so I believe this is simply using a very peculiar way of speaking. But it’s peculiar whether you take it as being about a millennium. And it’s impossible if you take it as the literal heavens and the new earth. But if it’s figurative for people having eternal life, then that’s what it is. It’s figurative for that. And we do have eternal life. So that’s why I would be inclined to take it that way. But mostly not just because of the verse itself. I’m kind of forced to make a meaning for that verse similar to that, just like everyone who has some kind of a paradigm does, because of what I understand the context to be. I believe the context of this entire seven chapters is about the New Covenant era, which we live in now. So that’s what I say. Now, obviously, that’s not something that can be said very briefly. And that’s why, you know, when I made my comment, I don’t think the new heavens and new earth in Isaiah is the same as the new heavens and new earth in Revelation. You know, I was looked at like You know, boy, is that a stretch? Well, it’s not really a stretch, but it does require a considerable amount of analysis and consideration of context and consideration for the New Testament, Rajasthani, and so forth, which means it’s a position you can’t just say briefly, as I just proved, because I’ve just taken 20 minutes saying it. All right, we need to go and talk to some callers right now, and our first caller is Adam from Ohio. Adam, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hey, Steve. Great. Question. We had a visiting preacher yesterday, and he made a comment that he would not feel comfortable baptizing a convert who did not believe in the Trinity. I do believe in the Trinity, but I kind of took issue with it, and my stance was really minimalistic in that I think that if someone believes that Jesus is Lord and King… and the only person that could save them from sin, that would be enough for baptism. I don’t know that God really requires us to fully understand, and I could be wrong, what Jesus’ relationship was with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, or what Jesus is fully. I don’t know, how do you feel about that minimalistic stance?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I’m with you on that, because frankly, the 3,000 who got converted and baptized on the day of Pentecost. And as far as we know, the rest of the people who were baptized in the book of Acts probably did not have a Trinitarian doctrine. It’s almost certain that the 3,000 on Pentecost didn’t. Where would they have gotten that? They were Jewish. Jews don’t have a Trinitarian doctrine. They’re Unitarian in their belief about God. And Peter’s sermon, through which they got converted, didn’t mention anything about the Trinitarian doctrine. And yet when they heard his sermon, they were convicted, pricked to their heart, and they said, what must we do? And his answer was not believe in the Trinity. His answer was repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins, and you’ll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now, interestingly, he mentioned Jesus and he mentioned the Holy Spirit, but he didn’t mention the Trinity doctrine. Now, I do believe in the Trinity doctrine, but I don’t think the apostles understood that early on. And I’m not even sure that the church in general did for the first several hundred years. Obviously, the Council of Nicaea gathered in part to put together some of that doctrine. It was not thoroughly put together there, but they were working on it. And I believe that eventually, after about, I don’t know, 400 years, the early church finally came up with a more succinct doctrine, doctrinal statement about the Trinity. Before that… First of all, most people were largely illiterate. Very few had Bibles, and they would not know the Trinity Doctrine intuitively. It’s far from intuitive, even when you’re taught it. You still have to kind of prove it to yourself from Scripture because it’s not intuitive. And so since I don’t see any of the preachers in the New Testament preaching the Trinity Doctrine, per se, to unbelievers… And yet they baptized everyone who believed. I have to say they must have baptized a lot of people who did not believe in the Trinity or didn’t know about the Trinity. They believed in Jesus. And while I do believe in the Trinity doctrine, I don’t believe that understanding the Trinity doctrine is a necessity for salvation. And a good thing, too, because I’m not sure anyone understands it, to tell you the truth. Anyway, that’s kind of my take on that.
SPEAKER 08 :
So you would lean into that even the apostles really didn’t understand it. Like there wouldn’t be any verses that this pastor could glean off and say, yeah, they understand it right here. You would even say, yeah, they wouldn’t even fully understand the Trinity doctrine or how that worked.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, probably not right at first because the day Peter preached his first sermon, he had just gotten filled with the Spirit that day. And I don’t think he had thought through all the theology yet. He certainly didn’t know the Trinity doctrine prior to the day of Pentecost. And I don’t think he did immediately on the day of Pentecost. I think the Holy Spirit, when he came, began to lead them into all truth like Jesus said he would. And eventually, I think, they came to understand the essence of what we call the Trinity. But I don’t think they knew it immediately. And I don’t think there was ever a time in the early church where it became an essential part of what people had to confess in order to be followers of Jesus. Now, I would like it if everyone understood the Trinity the way I do, but I don’t make the conditions for salvation. God does. There’s nothing in the Bible that says you have to understand or believe the Trinity doctrine. in order to be saved. Because if you did, then an awful lot of people in the first four centuries who were in the churches were simply not saved because the Trinity doctrine had not been formulated that clearly. You know, even at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., the council decided that Jesus is deity, that he is God. But they hadn’t hammered out the details of the Trinity Doctrine, of which the deity of Christ is an important part. But they came up with that in 325, or I should say they agreed with it. It was in the Bible, but it was not unambiguous. And because it was not unambiguous, many churches didn’t go along with the Nicene Council. Virtually all the churches in Germany rejected the Nicene Council and remained Arian, which means they didn’t even believe in the deity of Christ, just like many Christians didn’t before the council. So, you know, these theological details, and we might say, well, how dare you call them details? They’re central to our faith. Well, they’re central to the faith as it’s come down to us since these councils got together. But the truth is, the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that Christians are obligated to follow councils. They’re supposed to follow Christ, and certainly they should follow the Word of God. Well, I do that, and I believe in the Trinity. But there are people who follow Christ and believe in the Word of God who have not yet really sorted that out, and they wouldn’t call themselves Trinitarian Gentiles. They may get there yet. But the Trinity, as important as it is to orthodoxy, is not ever said to be a doctrine that’s necessary for salvation. I realize some people say you have to be orthodox to be saved. Well, again, that’s not something Jesus or the apostles said either. You have to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. You have to be submitted to him. You have to be repentant and following him. Yeah, all of that is true. But as far as your esoteric understanding of high truths that are not just laying around on the surface in Scripture to be picked up easily, I have to think most Christians throughout history have not been educated theologically, have not been very literate, and didn’t have Bibles. And therefore, their understanding of Christ was probably very deficient. And yet, you could be saved by following him. even if you didn’t have perfect knowledge of all the things we now know. Anyway, I need to take a break, but we have another half hour, so don’t go away. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds.
SPEAKER 01 :
The book of Hebrews tells us do not forget to do good and to share with others. So let’s all do good and share The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg with family and friends. When the show is over today, tell one and all to go to thenarrowpath.com where they can study, learn, and enjoy the free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. And be sure to tell them to tune into the show right here on the radio. Cheer listeners supported The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Share and do good.
SPEAKER 05 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls the whole time. Our lines are full, so I’m not going to give out the number right now, and we may have the whole half hour filled with these calls. If we do seem to go through them quickly and have time, I will definitely give the phone number out again. Our next caller is Keith from Idaho. And Keith, welcome to The Narrow Path. Good to hear from you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thank you, Steve. It’s so nice to talk to you. My question today is about Romans 9, 28. There’s a passage there from quoting three different places in Isaiah. And in the middle of it is verse 28 where he says, For he will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth. And I was hoping that you would be able to give me the full preterist perspective, the partial preterist perspective, and the dispensational perspective on that one verse. Cut it short in righteousness, and we’ll make a short work upon the earth.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I will just confess to you that wording has always been perplexing to me. And, you know, of course, Paul’s quoting it for some reason, so it must be relevant to his argument. I know what his argument is in general in Romans 9, but I don’t immediately see why this particular verse is given, except that it happens to be a follow-up. to the previous verse in Isaiah. He is quoting from Isaiah chapter 10. And I don’t know why he goes so far in the quotation, because he needed to quote Isaiah 10.20, I think it’s 10.22. It says, That’s the point Paul’s trying to make, is that the remnant, not the whole nation of Israel, will be saved. But then he continues, it’s the same passage in Isaiah, it continues further, for he will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the Lord will make his short work upon the earth. Now, again, I always thought that it would be more natural for Paul to simply cut off the quotation where he, you know, what he has in verse 27, and not have to continue it several more lines, because… He does not make it altogether clear what it means that the Lord will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness. It could well be that he means that he’ll finish the work, as Jesus said on the cross, it is finished. And, you know, the finished redemptive work. But that’s hardly relevant to the previous verse and Paul’s usage of it. Now… It may be that it’s a separate thought that Isaiah has and Paul quotes it because it’s relevant to the new covenant. If he says he will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, well, you know, Jesus came and began to preach at the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel and it was cut short. In the middle of the week and in that time, Jesus said it is finished. So, I mean, that may be what this is referring to, because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth. Now, of course, preterists of various kinds. whether full preterists or partial preterists, they might, I’m not sure what they will say about this, and maybe you’ve heard them say something, and you could share it, and I could comment on what I think about the idea. But it could be, remember Jesus said, when he’s talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse, he said, if those days were not shortened, then no flesh would survive. But for the lack of faith, those days will be shortened. I’m not exactly clear what that means, what it means they were shortened. Certainly in the context of Jesus’ statement, it’s talking about 70 A.D., talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. Was the time shortened in the sense that the people would have all starved to death in the city if God hadn’t allowed the Romans to break through and Put an end to it quickly and take them into captivity instead of letting them all die. But for the elect’s sake, they will be shortened. I’m not sure how that would help the elect because the elect had already escaped. Maybe that’s it. Maybe the time of judgment for the city was cut short for the elect, meaning they got out before it was over. They got out before the city fell. I honestly, I mean, this is like, frankly, like very many statements of the prophets. And we were just talking about one a few minutes ago. Isaiah 65, 20. Very, very difficult wording. Not entirely clear what it means and why Paul’s quoting it. I’m going to have to ask you. You bring it up because you say what would be the partial preterist and the full preterist. Have you heard this used by preterists to make a certain point?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I’ve got a preterist friend who thinks that this is… that this is a preterist statement. And so I was hoping he’d get some insight. Well, I’m not sure.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right. I don’t see it as such. But if it were, I don’t know how it would differ whether the person was a partial preterist or a full preterist. It’s not – I mean, the difference between a partial preterist and a full preterist is that the partial preterist still believes – that even though many prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD, that there are still some prophecies for the end of the world that have not been fulfilled. Whereas the full preterist says, no, they’re all about 70 AD. Well, if it could be shown somehow, and I’m not seeing it necessarily, but it’s possible. There’s always a possibility somebody has seen something I’m missing. But if it’s possible that it is time at 70 AD, I don’t know how it would favor the full preterist, any more than the partial preterists, because both partial and full preterists believe there’s lots of verses in the Bible about 70 AD. And if this is one of them, okay, we’ll add that to the list that are. But if it is, to my mind, it’s not clear as a bell. You know, it’s very difficult to know how that wording fits into Paul’s argument, because Paul, of course, is not here. I don’t think he’s interested in talking about 70 AD so much. He is talking about the fact that the people of Israel will not all be saved, only the remnant will be saved. And he quotes from Isaiah, in that particular case, he quotes from Isaiah chapter 10, 22 and 23, and then he also, in verse 29, he quotes from Isaiah 1-9, both of which talk about God saving only a remnant. And the remnant were saved, and the city was destroyed after the remnant fled, from the city we know that historically to be true so I mean if they’re saying okay God saved the remnant and then he cut short the life of Jerusalem and the temple and destroyed it well that’s not entirely clear from the wording but if it does mean that I have no problem with it it doesn’t serve a full preterist any more than it would serve a partial preterist if that’s what it means
SPEAKER 03 :
I was noticing one commentator thought that the quote, part of that quote was from Isaiah 28-22, which reads, “…now therefore do not be mockers, lest your bonds be made strong. For I have heard from the Lord Yahweh of hosts a destruction determined even upon the whole earth.” And so I wonder if that is an accurate take on this, whether it’s whether he is actually quoting from Isaiah 28, 22.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, I’d have to see what argument that commentator makes, because from just reading the passage, I don’t see it quoted there. Maybe there’s a connection between the passages that I’ve never heard. But, you know, on the whole earth, of course, in the Hebrew, Eretz can mean earth or can mean land. So it could be talking about judgment on the whole land of Israel. And it could, I mean, certainly, I believe it could refer to AD 70. I believe a lot of passages in Isaiah do. I’m just not seeing clarity in this particular verse that Paul quotes. I mean, I’m not saying only that I don’t see it clearly referring to AD 70. I don’t see it clearly referring to anything. I don’t know what it’s referring to. It’s not real clear. So I have to plead agnosticism on that one.
SPEAKER 03 :
I also had a question about Hebrews 11.6. This is completely unrelated, but it deals a little bit with what you were talking about at the start of the program. Hebrews 11.6 says, Without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is in a reward of those who diligently seek him. That word impossible, as I was looking it up, is adunamos. I think it’s the Greek word for power. And so this says, but without faith, you could say it’s The person is without power to please God. And so the question stems from that is somebody who is unfamiliar with God, with the Bible, but they live essentially a righteous life. They’re generous. They love their friends and neighbors. They love their strangers. They help people. And I was saying that, well, I think God is pleased with that. And my friends at the Bible study were saying, no, no, no. It’s impossible to please God without faith. Therefore, anything done without a knowledge of God is sin. That can’t be true. What do you think?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, that’s a fairly Calvinist way of looking at things, that even if you’re not regenerated, Even the good deeds you do are sin, you know, because you’re sinful through and through. And no matter what you do, it’s sinful unless God regenerates you and makes you a new creation.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I’m Abraham and all the people who were unregenerated. I know.
SPEAKER 05 :
I know. But see, Calvinists believe that these people were regenerated. They believe that the Old Testament saints were regenerated, though there’s not anything in the Bible to support that idea. And there’s something to not support it, because regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit, it says in John 7, verse 39, that the Holy Spirit was not yet given. In Jesus’ lifetime because Jesus was not yet glorified. And Peter says in 1 Peter 1.3 that we’ve been born again through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. So it strikes me as the Bible teaches the Holy Spirit is given after Jesus’ death and resurrection. And and he regenerates us and we’re regenerated due to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. That would mean that people in the Old Testament didn’t have this experience. And, you know, and that doesn’t mean they weren’t saved. It means that they were just like Abraham, justified by. by their faith, but they didn’t have the experience of regeneration, which is a New Testament phenomenon. But Calvinists don’t agree with that because their doctrine is that if you’re not regenerated, you can’t do anything good. And clearly the Old Testament describes some people like Job as being very good. So they have to say they were regenerated, but there’s no biblical basis for saying that about the Old Testament saints then.
SPEAKER 03 :
So the idea that somebody who does not today is not aware of the Bible, is not aware of God at all, when they do righteous things, is God pleased with their righteous acts?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, it’s hard to say that they have no faith at all, even if they don’t know God like we do. I mean, Paul said that the Athenians were ignorantly worshiping the God that he came to tell them about. You know, they had a shrine that says, to the unknown God. And he says, I saw this shrine in your town to the unknown God. He says, this God that you are ignorantly worshiping, I’m here to tell you about him. And so basically saying, you’ve never heard of the name Yahweh. You’ve never heard of Jesus. You’ve never heard really, you don’t know about the God I’m here to tell you about. but you have been ignorantly worshiping him, and I’m here to make you not ignorant so you can worship him knowledgeably. So maybe people who don’t even know God But they know there’s a God or they know there’s right and wrong and there’s some higher being that cares about right and wrong. And they don’t know anything more about than that. And they choose to go right instead of wrong. Who knows? Maybe that is what we call faith. Faith in the little bit of knowledge, the little bit of light they have. So, you know, I mean. It’s a good question. The same question is always asked. You know, what about people who have never heard of Christ and so forth? How is God going to judge them? Well, the Bible actually says God’s going to judge every man according to his works and his deeds, whether he did good or evil. There are Christians who say, well, nobody except the regenerated have ever done good. and others would say, well, that’s not what the Bible says. The Bible describes people as doing good. Certainly Cornelius was doing good before he knew the gospel. You know, Mary and Joseph were good people, and certainly we’re told that John the Baptist’s parents were blameless according to the law. This is before Jesus was even born. So, you know, the Bible does not say that everyone who’s not a Christian can’t do any good. So I’ll leave the judgment with God. But, yeah, your question really is very similar to the one of, well, what’s God going to do in judging people who’ve never heard the gospel? I’ll let him decide that. The thing is, he wants everyone to hear the gospel, because without hearing the gospel, you will not be participating in the kingdom here. God has a kingdom. He has a purpose. He’s got a program. And he calls all of us who have heard the gospel, I think, called by the gospel. into this program. God wants everyone in the program. But it doesn’t mean that everyone who doesn’t get into the program is going to be condemned to hell necessarily. I mean, maybe they will be, but the Bible doesn’t say it like that. And so it leaves open the question of, you know, God may have something he’s going to do with those who’ve never heard the gospel that we don’t know about. However, we do know this. It’ll be just because God is incapable of being unjust. So, I think all we can do is go forward without complete knowledge, but with assurance that God does the just thing. Hey, Keith, my lines are flowing. I’m running out of time. It’s always great to hear from you, brother. Thank you. Thanks for calling, man. Okay, we’re going to talk next to, it looks like it’s going to be Denny in Emlinton, Pennsylvania. Denny, welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s correct, Emlinton, Pennsylvania.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, great.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. Sure. It’s the first time I’ve ever tried calling you, so I’m a little bit nervous. All right.
SPEAKER 05 :
I should just say we have very limited time, so go ahead to your question.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, first of all, I greatly thank you for your free website. I wish you lived closer. I’d be in the front seat listening to you. I listened to your debate with Dr. Michael Brown and one thing for certain, your interpretation will never lend itself to strivings about genealogies.
SPEAKER 06 :
That’s true.
SPEAKER 04 :
And here’s my first question. Speaking of which, were the twelve disciples all of the tribe of Judah?
SPEAKER 05 :
It is generally thought that the answer is no. We’re not given their tribal affiliation, except that Judas Iscariot, Iscariot is a word that means man of Kiriath, and Kiriath is a Judean city. And so if Judas, a man of Kiriath, is what that means. That means he was from Judah and probably of the tribe of Judah. Now, all the others, as far as we know, were Galileans. Galileans could be of the tribe of Judah, but in general, Galilee was populated by people who weren’t specifically of the tribe of Judah. But all the Jews, no matter what tribe they were from, had been part of the nation of Judah before the Babylonian exile because the other tribes had been taken into captivity in 722 B.C. and pretty much, I think, they lost their tribal identities. But many of them, before their country was destroyed, immigrated south to the land of Judah and became part of Judah, not the tribe of Judah, but the nation of Judah. And so when Judah went into captivity in Babylon, there were people from all the different tribes among them. But they were all called Jews after the fact that they had been part of the nation of Judah. But there are some tribal distinctions. For example, Paul in his day knew that he was of the tribe of Benjamin. Barnabas was a Levite. And, you know, the woman who I think Anna in the temple, I think she was of the tribe of Asher, as I recall. So some of the Jews knew what tribes they were from. But they all had been part of the nation of Judah at the time of the exile of Babylon. Their ancestors had.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s how I would see it, too. They would be called a people who were a people, correct?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 04 :
Like in Hosea’s prophecy about those would be a people, and Israel would be called a people who were not a people.
SPEAKER 05 :
And Peter quotes it that way, too, in 1 Peter 2. You were not a people, but you’re now the people of God, right?
SPEAKER 04 :
So the Israel, when Paul was talking in Romans 9 there, he said that it includes the people who were not a people would be those ten lost tribes plus the Gentiles, you know. I believe so. So there’s a state of where it was Paul, Dr. Michael Brown, an accusation of replacement theology, saying that the Gentiles were… They were also considered not a people. And so, like you say, Israel certainly carries more than just one meaning.
SPEAKER 05 :
And even the nation of Israel in the Old Testament had Gentiles who were part of it. Because any time a Gentile wanted to become part of Israel, they could get circumcised and be, the law says they’d be like a native of the land. So they’d be part of Israel just like a Jew would. Hey, brother, I need to take some more calls. Was that the only question you had? Because I only have less than ten minutes left.
SPEAKER 04 :
I had another one about the false prophet there, but who you think that is, or who’s responsible, but I don’t want to take up, I’ll call back again.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, you mean the false prophet in Revelation?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I’d recommend, go to my website, thenarrowpath.com, look under verse-by-verse teachings, and go to Revelation chapter 13, and my comments there will answer that for you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. All right. Thank you very much here, Steve.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, Danny. It’s a pleasure talking to you. God bless. All right. Let’s talk to Ada in the United Kingdom. Hi. Welcome. Hi. Good evening.
SPEAKER 02 :
Just a quick question. I know you don’t have much time. Thank you for your show. Basically, when you were debating Dr. Michael Brown, you mentioned that all the Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled because of Matthew 5.17. Is that correct?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, Matthew 5.17 and also Luke 21, I think it’s 22 or 23.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, so then how do you explain Acts 3.21 when it mentions that there’s going to be a restoration of orphans that the prophets have spoken about? Because that’s still in future terms, right? Yes.
SPEAKER 05 :
I think the restoration of all things refers to the whole New Testament phenomenon, that God is restoring the faithful Jews to himself and the faithful Gentiles who have been separated from him, like at the Tower of Babel, for example, where they’re all spread out, that God’s calling people to himself and restoring his kingdom in this era. Now, I do believe… When I say there’s nothing fulfilled from the Old Testament… after, say, Jesus’ time, what I mean is there are lots of passages in the Old Testament that talk about the church age, as we call it. And that church age certainly extends long after the fall of Jerusalem, but it began before that. In other words, a system was established under the Messiah as predicted, and that system was set up in the lifetime of the Apostles, And Jesus was that fulfillment. He did set that up through his disciples. Now, that system continues, even though the first century is gone, the temple has been destroyed, Jesus has come and gone. Yet what he established is an eternal thing. So what I was suggesting is I don’t know of anything in the Old Testament that was predicted that wasn’t fulfilled or at least inaugurated. In the time of Christ and the apostles. But much of it goes on because much of what the Old Testament talks about is eternal stuff, you know, which is not punctiliar stuff that just happens in one moment and then it’s done.
SPEAKER 02 :
So just to clarify then, so almost indirectly, the prophet could be talking about some of the future things, but it will be fulfilled in Christ from an eternal perspective or inaugurated into the future beginning with Christ.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, right. In other words, Christ, I think, has begun to fulfill all things. Okay. And to restore all things. The restoration is the process of the evangelization and discipleship of the whole world, of the nations. And that did begin in the time, well, not quite Jesus’ time, but soon after Pentecost. And so I believe that those prophecies… were fulfilled, but not completed. That is, they speak of a new order, and that new order was inaugurated, not postponed until a later time. It was inaugurated when Jesus was here, as opposed to being postponed and awaiting inauguration at his second coming, which is what premillennialists think.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good day.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right, brother. Thanks for calling. Let’s see how much we can get in here. Let’s see. This is Priscilla from Vancouver, B.C. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi there, Steve. Nice to speak to you. I have it all written, ready to go. I know the drill. Okay. Read it. Good. In a time where revenge hates evil, it’s so overboard to kill instead of reason. to gossip instead of ask. From a person’s state, coming from a bloody, demonic, hurtful being, abused and being the abuser, past or present, why and how does one maintain the Christianity or even consider being one?
SPEAKER 05 :
Now, you say, let me see if I understand you. Are you saying how do we faithfully live as Christians in an environment that has turned to violence and satanic corruption? Is that what you’re saying? Are you saying that how can a person who’s been involved in that corruption be saved? I am not quite sure what your question is.
SPEAKER 07 :
Are you saying how can we live in this? Yes, maintain the Christianity or even consider being one in these times.
SPEAKER 05 :
I see, I see. Yeah, well, that’s a fair question. One thing we have to remember is Christianity began in times that were satanic and pagan. I mean, it’s true that it started in Israel, which was more or less civilized by the law of Moses, although… the people of Israel were pretty far from God in their hearts, the Bible says. But it was at least a more or less moral society. But as soon as the gospel reached outside of Israel, and it did through Paul’s ministry and such, it was in total pagan territory. I mean, the Romans, the Greeks, they worshipped demons. I mean, they were very possibly worse than the culture we’re in right now. And yet they had to be faithful to Christ. And they can because the power of the Holy Spirit if we walk in the spirit, we’ll not fulfill the lust of the flesh. And it won’t matter what people around us are doing because we’ll be self-regulating. You know, there are cold-blooded animals who don’t regulate their own body temperature. And their body assumes the temperature of the environment around them. But warm-blooded animals regulate their own body temperature. And it doesn’t matter what the temperature is around them. They’re starting to be, in our case, 98.6 degrees. And that’s what we’re supposed to be like. You know, there are people who adapt to their surroundings. And there’s people who keep their temperature proper, regardless of the surroundings. I’m out of time. Our website’s thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
