This episode takes you on a theological journey through the realms of prophecy, exploring the distinctions between varied interpretations within Christianity regarding salvation, the role of sacrifices post-Christ, and the mysterious third heaven mentioned by Paul. With valuable contributions from listeners, Steve navigates the treasures and complexities of scriptures, making this episode an enriching experience for all who seek deeper biblical understanding.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 06 :
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 in real time and talk to you about the questions you raise about the Bible, about Christianity, maybe a disagreement you have with the host. You might raise those for conversation. We’ll be glad to hear from you about that. The number to call is 844-484-5737. Now, right now our lines are full, so don’t bother calling at the moment. But if you call in a few minutes, lines will be opening. The number is 844-484-5737. I want to remind you that there’s certain things that we normally do once a month, live things. Some of them are live events in person. Some are on Zoom. The first Wednesday of every month, we do a Zoom meeting. Usually it’s Q&A, although this next Wednesday, which is the first Wednesday of this month, I’m going to be speaking by request on the subject of why I’m still a Christian. If you are skeptical about Christianity or you know somebody who isn’t, I would suggest you encourage them to participate in that with us, and there will be Q&A afterwards. So I’ll take challenges and questions afterward. But anyway, that’s this Wednesday night, 7 o’clock Pacific time, and it’s on Zoom. So you’ll find out how to log on there if you go to our website, thenarrowpath.org. And look under announcements. Now, another thing we do monthly usually, or we schedule monthly, is a couple of meetings in Southern California. A men’s Bible study on the, what is it, third Saturday of the month, and also a meeting in Buena Park the third Saturday of the month. We’ve had to cancel those the last few months because of my travels. And once again, I’ll be gone at that time. But in June, we hope to start those up again. So, again, in May, we’re canceling those meetings. All right. Having said that, we’ll go to the phones and talk to Michael in Denver, Colorado. Michael, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 07 :
Steve, so nice to talk to you today. Thank you, as always, for your very uplifting show and conversation. I just had kind of a quick question today about something I kind of found interesting. I was reading in John. So John 12, where it talks about Mary of Bethany. You know, she had this really expensive veil of ointment, and she was with Jesus, and she went up to him and poured the bottle of it on him. And, you know, about this, I think it stands to logic that she somehow knew Jesus because generally, you know, you wouldn’t just go up to someone that you didn’t know and pour a whole bottle of really expensive, you know, ointment or perfume on them. But also, you know, when Jesus talks about when the apostles got upset, they said, you know, she wasted the oil on Jesus. But he said, no, she’s anointing me for my burial. And so I was just wanting to get some, like, further kind of clarification on what Jesus meant by that. And also, you know, the connection. Did Mary of Bethany priorly know Jesus before?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, yeah. Mary and her sister Martha and their brother Lazarus were very close friends of Jesus’s. We read in Luke, I think it’s chapter 10, of Jesus being in their home. And Martha was serving and Mary was sitting at the feet of Jesus listening to him, which Martha was not. Martha miscalculated what Jesus would prefer and thought that Jesus would rather have her and Mary serving in the kitchen. But Jesus corrected her and said he actually favored more what Mary was doing, listening to his teaching. And because Mary listened to his teaching, she knew better. than some others, apparently better even than the disciples did, what Jesus was facing. Because he says here, when she anointed him, and this was a very different occasion than the other time I just mentioned, it says she has kept this for the day of my burial. Now, kept this suggests that she’s commemorating something. It’s sort of a ceremony that she’s involved in. I think some of the other… say she’s anointed me for Bera. And the point is that she seems to have known that he was going to die. Now, it’s possible that if she didn’t, he might have said this to say, well, there’s a meaning to what she’s done that goes deeper than what she’s aware of. Namely, that I’m going to die and I’m not going to have a chance to be anointed because I’ll be hastily buried before sundown on Passover time. So she’s pre-anointing me. She doesn’t know it. but I know it, and that’s how I’m understanding it. But I think the way he said it, she has kept it. It’s like you keep a festival, you keep a special day. It’s like she’s observing something, that he’s going to be buried, and she’s anointing him or honoring him for that. And so it would suggest that she knew, actually she probably was listening to Jesus a little more closely than the disciples, and even they didn’t know he was going to die at that point, but But she picked it up. And so that’s how he interpreted her action. Now, the previous chapter, John 11, talks about her and her sister and their brother when Lazarus was sick. And Jesus went down to raise Lazarus from the dead and had conversations with both Martha and Mary separately. And the Bible says specifically there that Lazarus loved Mary and Martha and Lazarus. They were close friends of his, even before that encounter. So this chapter 12 of John, where she anoints Jesus, it’s the third time that we have on record of any interaction between him and them. But, I mean, we have reason to believe there’s more than just what’s recorded, but the point is that These were close friends of his. So, yeah, there’s no question as to whether she knew Jesus or knew him well. She apparently did. All right. Let’s talk to Paul from Buena Vista, Colorado. Second Colorado caller in a row. Hello, Paul. Welcome. Oh, no. I thought I hit the button to put you on there and I must have hit the button to hang up on you. That is not on purpose. I’m really sorry for that. Call back, Paul, and we’ll try to put you near the front of the line. as quickly as we can. I’m sorry about that. Steve from Long Beach, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, good afternoon, Steve. Thank you for taking my call, as always. Hey, I know how the dispensationalists would answer this question, and I’m not a dispensationalist, but this is my question. We know that God has no respect for persons, and we know that God told the thief on the cross today, you’ll be with me in paradise. And since God’s no respecter of persons, and the Bible says that wages of sin is death, there’s my question. Enoch and Elijah did not die. And so, number one, did they go to paradise? Or did they go in the presence of God somehow? And number two, when we die, to be asked for the body as a present with the Lord. Is paradise a new location now, or will we be in paradise?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, the things you’re asking are not answered directly in Scripture. We have enough information to guess at it, but not to be sure that we’re guessing correctly. It is believed, by most, I think, that when Jesus said to the thief, you’ll be with me in paradise, that paradise is a reference to a portion, Of Hades. All dead people went to Hades. That’s what Hades was. Hades was the universal place of the dead. And the same as Old Testament Sheol in Hebrew. And it was divided into two compartments is what most people have understood. And that paradise was the compartment where the righteous would go. And the other compartment was a place of fire where the unrighteous would go. So when Jesus said, you’ll be with me in paradise… He meant that as they were both going to be buried that day, they’re both going to go to Hades, they would be in that portion of Hades that is for the righteous and where it’s not suffering. But what was it for? As near as I can tell, it was understood to be a place where people went to wait until they could go to heaven or hell, wait until the judgment. Now, how much of that is understood correctly and how much is not, I don’t know. When Elijah and Enoch were carried away alive from the earth, the presumption is they went to heaven, although I don’t know that we really have any specific information about that. You asked if they went to paradise. Well, they might have, but it doesn’t describe them dying. And if they didn’t die and they went down to paradise to live with the dead, I don’t know. I mean, that’s a strange thing. I’m not sure if that’s a blessing to them to end their lives prematurely and send them to the place of the dead, when in fact, I think the impression is that both these men were taken up because they were specially favored. So I would think that they probably went to heaven. But I don’t know. I mean, we’re not really told. So I don’t know any place else for them to go. Now, you said when we die, we go to be with the Lord. Is that where paradise is now? Well, I believe so. I believe that since Jesus died and rose again, believers do not have to go into a holding place until the judgment because we have now received eternal life through the death and resurrection of Christ. It says in Hebrews chapter 10 that through his body, he has passed through the veil and has made a new and living way for us to follow him into heaven itself, which suggests that heaven, which was not available before Jesus died, is available to us now that he has. And, you know, so apparently paradise is now in heaven as opposed to in Hades. I say apparently because this is not stated clearly, but Paul did say in 2 Corinthians 12 that he knew a man who was caught up into the third heaven, even into paradise. So it seems like since the death and resurrection of Christ, paradise is now associated with heaven. And that’s about the best I can say. Honestly, I’m not really sure how having certain knowledge of these particular points would enhance our spiritual lives. But insofar as we have any information, which isn’t very thorough, these are not thoroughly discussed in the Bible, it would seem that what I just described and what you yourself apparently suspected is in fact correct. That’s what I would say. I’m sorry. I was hoping to get back to another caller here in Colorado, Dwight in Denver, Colorado. Dwight, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. Yes, I was wanting to get an outline of the book of Ezekiel. Do you have outlines of books? I’m not sure where to locate them.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, if you want any of the notes on my lectures, and certainly all my lectures have outlines of the books that I teach, you can go to Matthew713.com. Okay. Matthew713.com.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right, I’m on there.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, one of the categories says lecture notes. So you go to the lecture notes and scroll on down to Ezekiel. Now, if they’re not there, it may be that they don’t exist. I haven’t taught Ezekiel for a while. I do have notes. in a folder, handwritten notes I did years ago, it may be that those notes don’t exist in digital form. I’m not real positive. But if they are, if they do exist, they are at Matthew 7, 13. I’m just going to check real quickly and see in my notes. I’m looking now. Okay, just a moment. Okay, Old Testament. Yeah, I’ve got digitized notes on Ezekiel on my computer. Really? I just found them. Yeah. So I… Maybe they haven’t been uploaded to Matthew 713. I thought all the notes had. I know you have my email, Dwight, so if you want to write to me, and if you can’t find them, otherwise I’ll email them to you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, because I’m not finding them. Thank you very much. All right, brother. Thanks for your call. Okay. Take care. Bye now. Bye. Yeah, almost all the notes from my lectures, if they exist in digital form, are found at Matthew713.com. Okay, let’s talk to Jacob from Tacoma, Washington. Hi, Jacob. How are you doing?
SPEAKER 08 :
Good. Good to talk with you. I am thinking about sacrifices and offerings, and I may have a different perspective than you. I believe that there’s a possibility that they’re still valid, but I don’t believe they’re valid for any time or anywhere. And my evidence for that would be I think Noah did some sacrifices, but my question is actually, because I know that Jesus talked about observing Passover and Peter, and Paul did a sacrifice in a temple in the book of Acts. Do you think that Ezekiel may or may not be inspired by God?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, no, I believe Ezekiel was inspired by God. How else would he have known the future so accurately? I mean, so many of his prophecies came true just as he described them.
SPEAKER 08 :
My curiosity surrounds the temple and the sacrifices. Maybe they’re different in the Ezekiel temple, but the place that we were supposed to sacrifice as Israelites was in Jerusalem, I believe, at the temple. And I know there was a second temple, so I’d I’m wondering why we think that at the end of the second temple, the whole temple system was destroyed as opposed to just that particular temple.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, the reason is because Jesus fulfilled all that the temple foreshadowed. And, I mean, why would, if God still wanted his people to offer animal sacrifices in the temple, why would he sovereignly have the temple destroyed in 70 AD as Jesus said God would do? and then leave it unbuilt. It’s still not built until, say, 2,000 years later. So the entire age since Jesus has come has essentially been without a temple or sacrifices, and that’s been through no fault of anybody except, well, I mean, it’s been God’s doing. God has not allowed there to be a temple. God would be pretty weak and pretty negligent, I would think, if he expected his people for these past 2,000 years to be offering animal sacrifices and didn’t allow anybody any opportunity to do so. Now, you said Noah offered sacrifices. That’s true. I’m not sure. It may be that your point is that Noah was before the law, and therefore sacrifices aren’t only part of the law. They existed before the law. Yeah, Abel offered sacrifices, too. And Noah and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, they all offered sacrifices, and they were before the law. And then, of course, there’s an elaborate sacrificial system included in the law. But all the sacrifices, whether in the law or before it, have been fulfilled in Christ. And we know that there won’t be any more or any need for any more. Because in Hebrews chapter 10, it says in verses 11 and 12, every priest, he means in the temple in Jerusalem. stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man, meaning Jesus, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. Now, he’s saying in the Jewish temple, the sacrifices never ceased because none of them really did away with sin. They couldn’t. He says elsewhere, the blood of bulls and goats, it’s impossible for them to take away sin. So, So the sacrifices were just ritualistic. They didn’t really accomplish anything, but they foreshadowed something. And what they foreshadowed was Christ offering one sacrifice for all time. That’s good forever. That’s Hebrews 10, 11, and 12. A little later, in the same chapter, he quotes from Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 10, 16, and 17. He says, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them. Then he adds, their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more. Now that’s a quotation from Jeremiah 31 about the new covenant. And he says, I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more. And then the writer of Hebrews says in verse 18, Now where there’s remission of these, that is where God has remitted sins and lawless deeds, where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. There’s no more sacrifices. Why? Because the sins that they were offering sacrifices for have been remitted. God’s not remembering them anymore because of Christ’s once and for all sacrifice. So the writer of Hebrews makes it very clear, the sacrifice of Christ and the new covenant that he brought in eliminated the validity of sacrifices once and for all. So, you know, I don’t think there’s any New Testament case can be made against that. Truly, there are people today who don’t understand the New Covenant, especially Hebrew Roots people. Often some of them actually, I’ve known some of them, not many of them, actually say if the temple was rebuilt, we should offer sacrifices again. Well, I guess that’d be the reasonable assumption of the Hebrew Roots movement, which doesn’t understand that the law has been fulfilled in Christ. And the Hebrew Roots Movement, of course, advocates that Christians keep the law, keep the festivals, keep the dietary laws, and so forth. But that’s absurd because the festivals require a temple. All the festivals in the Jewish festal year required Jews going to Jerusalem and offering animal sacrifices. That was part of the Passover ceremony. That was part of the That was part of the Feast of Tabernacles. And, of course, no one has done that for 2,000 years, nor can they. And I have no reason to believe that they ever will again. I don’t believe there will be another temple. If there is, you said, well, after the first temple was destroyed, there was a second one. Now that the second one has been destroyed, why wouldn’t there be a third? Well, there might be. I mean, I don’t know if there will be a third, but it won’t be from God. God has ended that. The reason God has allowed that to be destroyed and not come back for 2,000 years is is it’s absolutely defunct. It’s absolutely of no value. Hebrews 8.13 says where there’s a new covenant, the old covenant is obsolete. And that’s why its trappings have disappeared. You don’t need them. And you’ll never need them again. So if the Jews do build another temple, it’ll be just their way of thumbing their nose at Jesus Christ, saying we don’t believe you accomplished anything. We don’t believe that you fulfilled anything. We’re going to do our old thing that we did before in rebellion against you. Well, they can do that if they want to, because Judaism is an anti-Christian religion, just like Islam is. So, you know, Islam can do whatever they want. Judaism can do whatever it wants. But God won’t have anything to do with it if they’re rejecting Jesus Christ, which is exactly what they will be doing if they build that temple again. They’ll be doing it because they don’t recognize Christ as the fulfillment of these things. Okay, let’s talk to Junior from Bowie, Maryland. Hi, Junior. Good talking to you.
SPEAKER 13 :
Hey, Steve. All is well with you. Sorry for the noise in the background. I’m cleaning my dad’s car. Okay. So I have two questions. But the first one, I would like a super brief response because I would look up the rest. I’ll be trying to look up the rest of the answer myself. But the real question that I called for, I’ll ask that first. Okay. I’ve been trying to convince my cousin that the Garden of Eden was a literal place and it’s not metaphorical for another thing, another symbol, or I think that’s called the serpent seed doctrine. And she believes, my cousin believes that, in that doctrine, that the fruit in the Garden of Eden or a human body part, which I don’t believe. That’s what I called you for, but you gave an answer to someone, and that’s another question that I had was, are there three dimensions in heaven? When Paul says, I know a man that caught up in third heaven, is there a literal three-dimensional heaven, or is he using that word to just say that he was caught up to heaven? Yeah, those are my two questions.
SPEAKER 06 :
Thank you. What was the first one? Was the Garden of Eden a literal place?
SPEAKER 13 :
Yes. No, no, no. Not the Garden of Eden. Was the fruit in the Garden of Eden, was it literal or was it a sexual act? I believe it was literal, and that’s the church I used to come from, they believe that. But my cousin believed it was a sexual act. It was a metaphor for a sexual act.
SPEAKER 06 :
Right. Well, I’ve heard people say that, but I’ve never heard anyone find any reason in the Bible to believe it. Adam and Eve were a married couple and this idea that’s being suggested here that the forbidden fruit was sex or a sexual act would suggest that God made Adam and Eve with the intention that they not have sexual relations and that was forbidden to them. That’s a very strange doctrine when the first command that God gave to Adam and Eve when he created them was be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Now he’s talking about having babies. And, you know, he didn’t make amoebas. I mean, he did make amoebas, but he didn’t make people amoebas where they could just split into two. He made a whole class of mammals and reptiles and birds that are sexual creatures and fish and plants, too. There’s two sexes of most of these, and there’s certainly two sexes of humans. And they reproduce by having a sexual concourse. So it would be a really bizarre argument to, that God made them and told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with their children, but then told them, don’t have sex because that’s the forbidden fruit. I mean, is God schizophrenic or what? I do not understand even how that suggestion could even be entertained for two seconds. And your other question was related to it. What was that? Is heaven three-dimensional?
SPEAKER 13 :
Yes. When he said, I’ll have no man caught up in third heaven, Did he literally mean like a third dimension or a third level of heaven, or is he using that just to say he caught up into heaven?
SPEAKER 06 :
Right. Well, I wouldn’t think that three-dimensional would be described in numbers like first, second, and third heaven. I mean, it sounds much more like he’s talking about different levels of heaven, although I have always thought it probably refers to the fact that heaven is a term that’s used for three different things in the Bible. The atmosphere around the earth is called the heaven where the birds fly and the clouds are and so forth. That’s the heavens. I mean, that’s immediate proximity heavens, the air around us, the atmosphere. And then, of course, there’s the outer space heavens where the stars are and where the sun and the moon are and so forth. And the constellations, they’re out in heaven, too, a different heaven. And then, of course, there’s God lives in heaven, which is, I would understand that probably to be a spiritual dimension. Some people think of it as way beyond the blue somewhere. But Paul said, in him we live and move and have our being. So we have, you know, God is not far from any of us, he said. But he lives in heaven. So most, well, I don’t know about most, but a lot of people I’ve heard over the years have the opinion that the third heaven, or the place where God dwells, is a another dimension. You know, there’s another realm other than the physical, but it’s not necessarily far from here. It’s like, you know, our physical universe is made up of atoms, which are mainly made up of space with subatomic particles, you know, circulating in a small nucleus with mostly space in between. And there’s a lot of room for other universes. If there are atoms, if the If their subatomic particles were in the space of our atoms, you could have many parallel dimensions that we wouldn’t perceive. I don’t know that that has anything to do with reality, but many believe that the heaven where God dwells is a spiritual realm and kind of parallel to our realm rather than further out. But those are mere guesses. We don’t really know. Hey, I’m out of time for this one. We need to take a break. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Don’t go away. We have another half hour.
SPEAKER 02 :
Tell your family, tell your friends, tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to sell you but everything to give you. And that’s The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. When today’s radio show is over, go to your social media and send a link to thenarrowpath.com where everyone can find free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. And tell them to listen live right here on the radio. Thank you for sharing listener-supported The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.
SPEAKER 06 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour, taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith, you can call me. Actually, we have some lines open as I’m looking at the switchboard. A great time for you to fill one of those vacancies with your call. The number is 844-484. That number again is 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Jimmy calling from Jamesport, Missouri. Jimmy, welcome. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. So a couple years ago, I read your book about the kingdom of God, and it got me so excited. that i began to uh i’ve got two younger children and i wanted to to teach these things to them but they’re just not old enough to read the book so i’ve been putting together a bible study on the kingdom of god using your book and your lecture for children i guess my question go ahead for children you say yes good excellent yeah well hay is 15 and columns 10, but still they’re not ready to dig into your big book. But at any rate, I’ve been noticing as I’ve been looking at other denominations, to me the sectarian views of the kingdom of God, that almost all of them, whether they’re dispensational or even Calvinistic, they just have a hard time seeing that the kingdom of God is synonymous with the church. My question is, why do you suppose that is?
SPEAKER 06 :
I think the reason that is is because they have come to associate the church or define the church with the institutional churches. You know, I think the Catholic Church tends to see their church as the same thing as the kingdom of God. But everyone can see that the Catholic Church isn’t full of people who are all obedient to Christ as king. Some of them are. Many of them are not. And, you know, the kingdom of God is something that’s more idealized than that. In other words, the kingdom of God is comprised of those who obey Christ, who submit to Christ as Lord, as their king. And they make up a company or a community of second-born people, born-again people, who are disciples who are following Christ. Now, those, I mean, as you look at the Roman Catholic Church, there are people in there who are devoted to Christ and living their lives in the effort to please him and serve him. Good. Then those ones would be part of his kingdom. But like every other church, the Catholic Church has people in it who are just there because they’re not sure why they’re there. They’re not believers, necessarily. They were raised there. They, you know, they’re cultural Catholics or cradle Catholics or something, and they don’t necessarily follow Christ. And this is true in every church I’ve ever seen, every Protestant church, Catholic church, and so forth. And, you know, Protestants generally understand this. They understand that the Catholic church is not comprised entirely of true believers, and therefore to consider the Catholic church as the kingdom of God, would be something they would not find persuasive. But then, when they look at their own Protestant churches, they know that a lot of the people in their churches aren’t obedient to Christ either. So, you know, if they think of the church as the institution that goes by that name, no matter which denomination it’s associated with, anyone can see that the kingdom of God would not be the same as any of these institutional churches, nor is all of them combined. The kingdom of God is not that kind of an institution. Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world. Now, all of these institutions are of this world. I mean, some human beings started them. I know the Catholic Church thinks that Peter started their church and that Jesus appointed him, so they think they’re the real church. But I don’t think that’s very persuasive to people who aren’t Catholics. But Protestant churches, every one of them was started by a guy, some guy who just thought he’s better than the people in the churches before him. And so all churches are man-made institutions if we’re talking about institutional churches. If we’re talking about the true body of Christ, we’re talking about something Christ started. He ascended, he became the head, poured out his spirit on his true disciples, and they became his animated body filled with the spirit and obedient to him as the head. And everybody who fits that description, that is everyone who is filled with the spirit of Christ and following him as their head, is part of that body. But that body is not coextensive with any human-made organization. Every church I’ve been in has some people who are true Christians and some people who are not. The ones who are true Christians, who really follow Christ, are part of that larger, non-institutionalized, but organic spiritual entity called Christ. the body of Christ, which is identical with the kingdom of God, because the kingdom is comprised of those who embrace Christ as their king. And the body of Christ is made up of those who embrace Christ as their head, head of the body, king of the kingdom. Now, head and king are simply different metaphors for the same position. He’s the ruler, absolute ruler. And everybody who embraces them as their absolute ruler is part of that kingdom or part of that body. So, you know, I think that too many people think of the church only in institutional terms. And if you say, well, the church is the kingdom of God, they’re going to say, well, which one? Which one is the kingdom of God? Well, there’s only one. There’s only one church. There’s lots of institutional churches, but there’s only one body of Christ. And everyone who’s following Jesus and has his spirit in him is part of that body and part of that kingdom. So, in a sense, the church is the kingdom of God. but only if we understand the word church in the sense that Paul and Peter and Jesus understood that term. So I think that’s why you find as many as you do of people who understand that differently. Right. Okay. Thank you, Steve. Okay, Jimmy. God bless you. Thanks for your call. All right. Let’s talk to Michael from the Bay Area in California, San Francisco Bay Area, I assume. Hi, Michael.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi, Steve. A little bit before Easter, I met a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses and everything, and I’m fine with that, and I talked with them for a bit. And they gave me, like, a tract, and it said, You are invited, Memorial of Jesus’ Death. And inside it says, Memorial of Jesus’ Death. At this important event, Jehovah’s Witnesses commemorate the death of Jesus just as he commanded, Luke 22, 19. And I’m going, well, the apostles didn’t even know he was going to die at that moment, did they? That this is for commemoration of his death?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, you know, did you say Luke 22 or Matthew 22?
SPEAKER 03 :
Luke 22, 19.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, yeah. That says, he took the bread and gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them, saying, this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. It’s possible that they’re just saying what we call communion. That’s a commemoration of his death, as Jesus said. So maybe they’re just using the word commemoration of Jesus’ death as a reference to taking communion.
SPEAKER 03 :
Would you consider that more of his sacrifice or his life or his teachings more than his death?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, he talked about his body that is broken and the blood that is shed. That sounds like his death he’s talking about. you know, this cup is the cup of New Testament, my blood, which is shed for you. It sounds to me like, you know, the communion is a reminiscence of Christ’s death. Obviously, Christ’s death is not the only thing important to remember, but that’s what is specifically remembered in that ritual.
SPEAKER 03 :
At that time, none of the apostles realized that, did they?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, Jesus said it to them. He was speaking to the disciples when he said this.
SPEAKER 03 :
But did they know he was going to die and that this was the point of the ceremony?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, they may not have. They may not have. But he told them that from now on, when you eat this bread and drink this cup, you’re showing forth my death until I come. So after that, they would know. I mean, they may not have understood it at the point he was doing the ritual. But by the next year, when it came around again, they knew.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. Okay. Well, I thank you for that, Steve.
SPEAKER 06 :
All right, Michael. Thanks for your call. Denise from Sacramento, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you for your ministry. I have a question about the levels of heaven. How is that explained in the Bible other than Paul said he was caught up on the sixth level? Can you clarify that for me, please, the different levels?
SPEAKER 06 :
He said he was called to the third heaven. Were you listening during the first half hour of the program?
SPEAKER 09 :
Sporadically.
SPEAKER 06 :
I see, because I answered that question for someone just about ten minutes ago. I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t describe the three levels of heaven or even mention there are three levels. I mean, we might assume that the expression third heaven speaks of a first and a second and third level of heaven. And the Mormons, for example, see it that way. They see that good Mormons go to the third heaven. The second heaven is where, I guess, religious people who aren’t Mormons, if they’re decent folks, go to the second heaven. And the first heaven is where everybody else goes. Mormons, I think the Mormons do believe there is a hell, but they don’t think they believe very many people go there. So they believe that different levels of heaven exist. Now, the Bible doesn’t say that. The Bible doesn’t say anything about the first or second or third levels of heaven. So Paul gives us no information about that. What I said to an earlier caller just a few minutes ago was that there are three uses of the word heaven in Scripture. One refers to the immediate atmosphere around the earth. The other refers to outer space. And the third would represent where God dwells in the spiritual realm, I would assume. And so, you know, third heaven might refer to that. Not so much a third level of heaven, but just a third meaning of heaven, as heaven is used all three ways in Scripture.
SPEAKER 09 :
I have heard reference to spiritual warfare going on at a certain level of heaven. Is there anything like that in Scripture?
SPEAKER 06 :
No.
SPEAKER 09 :
A spiritual warfare being on a particular level.
SPEAKER 06 :
No, the closest thing you’ve got to any reference to that is in Revelation 12, verses 7 through 9, where Michael and his angels… are making war against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon and his angels are defeated and they’re cast out of heaven. So we’re not even told which heaven that is. But there’s no place that says, well, in the first heaven or the second or the third, you’ve got spiritual warfare going on. It’s somewhere. One of the heavens, we see that battle taking place. But it was, in my opinion, a symbolic vision anyway. So anyway, that’s not really so much about spiritual warfare that we’re engaged in as much as Michael and his angels against the devil and his angels. And that ended, I believe, when Jesus died and rose again. As it says in Revelation, that when the devil is cast out, when the dragon is cast out, a voice in heaven said, this is Revelation 12.10, a voice in heaven said, now salvation has come and strength and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ. for the accuser of the brethren has been cast out who accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony and loved not their lives unto death, it says in verse 11. So when the devil is cast out of heaven, that’s associated in Revelation with the time when salvation came, obviously the cross. And Jesus had said that in John 12, I think verse 31, where he said, Now is the judgment of this world. Now shall the prince of this world, meaning the devil, be cast out. So he was looking at the cross and saying, now the prince of this world is going to be cast out. And in Revelation, which, by the way, is written by the same author as John. So both statements are recorded by the same author. It says that salvation has come and the accused of the brethren has been cast out. So that would be at the cross, of course.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right.
SPEAKER 06 :
Thank you very much, Denise. We’re going to talk next to Matthew in Santa Cruz. Hi, Matthew. Welcome.
SPEAKER 12 :
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the call. I was just calling to see if I could clarify a previous question I had about Revelation 5-7 around the relationship of the Father and the Son. If the lamb that was slain took the scroll from the one who sat on the throne, how should we explain that in that case they are one just as the Father and the Son are one?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, the Father and the Son are one in a certain sense, but they’re two in a different sense. I mean, Jesus made it very clear that although he said, I and my father are one, he spoke of his father as somebody other than himself. He said, you know, I didn’t come to do my will, but I came to do the will of my father. Okay, so there’s two different wills here, his own and his father’s will. He said that if I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true. But there’s another who bears witness to me, the Father who sent me bears witness. So he speaks of the Father as a second person bearing witness to himself. So, you know, I don’t think any, for example, you know, I’m a Trinitarian. I believe in the Trinity. But I don’t think any Trinitarian thinks that the Father and the Son are one in every respect. In fact, there’s far more statements in the Bible that make a distinction between the Father and the Son than there are that equate them. In fact, I don’t think any passage equates them thoroughly. I’ve heard some passages like the word was God in John 1.1. Sounds like it’s equating them, but we also have in the same verse the word was with God and the word was God. So, okay, in some sense he was God, but in another sense he was distinct from God and with God. I mean, those two things you get right out of the same verse at the very beginning of the Gospel of John. So the Trinity teaches that Jesus and the Father are, in a sense, one. And in another sense, they’re not one. They’re two or three, if you include the Holy Spirit. So, yeah, in Revelation, it doesn’t depart from the norm of Scripture in describing the Lamb as someone additional to the one sitting on the throne. Clearly, the one sitting on the throne is the Father. And the lamb is Christ. And repeatedly in the book of Revelation, it says to him that sits on the throne and to the lamb, you know, and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and of the lamb for their wrath has come and so forth. I mean, just the one that sits on the throne and the lamb are treated as two, a Trinitarian would say two persons of the Trinity. So that’s, So you’ve got the Lamb depicted as someone separate from the one on the throne, which is in keeping with the entire New Testament teaching that Jesus is separate from his Father. Now, the things that are harder to explain are in what sense are they one? In what sense is the word God as well as with God? In what sense did Jesus mean the Father and I are one? He doesn’t mean we’re one person because he’s argued throughout the entire book of John and frankly, the other Gospels too, that he and the Father are distinct. But they are one in a sense. And again, the illustration I normally give, because it’s the one that first comes to mind, is if you’re married, you and your wife are one, one flesh. But in another sense, you’re not one, you’re two. It’s just that in one sense, you’re two. In another sense, you’re one. That’s a very reasonable thing to suggest. And it’s also reasonable to suggest about God. In one sense, he’s three. In another sense, he’s just one. One in substance, three in person is the way that the Trinity usually puts it. But I don’t care about the words. It’s just obvious that the Bible depicts Christ as separate from the Father, but also in some sense of one nature with the Father, in some sense one. But that sense in which he is one is frankly never addressed in Scripture very clearly. So we don’t know what words to use for it.
SPEAKER 12 :
Okay, perfect. Yeah, because I was thinking about how when he was on earth, he mentioned Christ. you know, the father and him having different wills, but since the revelation, it’s like they’re in the same presence. But the part that you mentioned about, you know, in other references, it does mention the lamb, you know, the lamb on the throne next to the one, you know, so I appreciate it. I’ll review that more, and I appreciate you taking the call. Okay, Matthew.
SPEAKER 06 :
Great talking to you. Thanks for calling. Bye.
SPEAKER 12 :
Bye now.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, let’s see. It’s going to be Craig from St. Paul, Minnesota next. Craig, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 11 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you for taking the call. And I just want to say it’s an inspiration, your ministry, and it’s just a good example that not everyone has to go to seminary. You just have a unique calling, and I appreciate it. My question kind of is a follow-up to a couple of days ago. You were talking about the Bible being the inspired word of God, and you said, And you alluded to some really compelling evidences of that, and I don’t think you have time to talk about it on that call. So what do you see as the most compelling evidence that the Bible is actually the inspired word of God?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, well, I think the evidence that it’s the inspired word of God, which God himself appeals to in the Bible, is that there are prophecies. where the prophets who are inspired by God are capable, thereby, to predict what’s going to happen, which a man could never do. For example, in Isaiah 41, verses 21 through 23, God says, and he’s basically challenging the false gods and their prophets, because Israel was compromising. They were not only worshipping Yahweh, they were also worshipping false gods, and And God is rebuking them for that. He speaks to their gods and thereby to their prophets who represent their gods because their gods are just made of stone. But he says, present your case, says the Lord. Bring forth your strong reason, says the king of Jacob. Let them bring forth and show what will happen. Let them show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them and know the latter end of them. Or declare to us things to come. Show us the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods. Yes, do good or do evil, that we may be dismayed and see it together. Now, he says, if you are real gods, if these stone and wooden gods that the pagans represent, if they’re real gods, well, then they should be able to do what any god could do. Namely, tell us what’s going to happen in the future. Now, he doesn’t spell it out, but it’s clearly the subtext is, yeah, I’m a real God, so my prophets can tell the future. If you guys are real gods, your prophets should be able to. So go ahead and tell us the future so we’ll know that you really are God. Now, his implication is, since I can tell the future, I am really God. And since my prophets can tell the future, it means I’m really telling them the future. I’m really inspiring them. They really are inspired because no human being can do that. So, I mean, there’s just really hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament that predict future things that did happen. Now, Jesus, when he’s in the upper room, was talking to his disciples and He’s telling them what they can expect to happen after he’s gone. And he says to them, I tell you these things before they happen so that when they happen, you may believe. So that’s in the Upper Room Discourse. Actually, he said it three times. And the reference is – let me see if I can find them quickly – Well, one of those times. Okay, chapter 13, maybe? John 13 and verse 19. Let me give you these here. Now I tell you before it comes, Jesus says, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am he. Then again in chapter 14, verse 29, he says roughly the same thing. He says, and now I have told you before it comes, so that when it does come to pass, you may believe. And then he says it in chapter 16, verse 4. He said, but these things I have told you, that when the time comes, you may remember that I told them. So he’s saying, I’m telling you future things, not so that you’ll know what the future is before it happens, but so that when it does happen, and you would have known it anyway, but the one thing different is you’ll remember I predicted it. And you’ll believe that I’m who I said I am because I was able to predict it. And so, I mean, this is really one of the main features of both the Old and New Testaments that prove their inspiration. Now, with most of the Bible, though I believe it’s all inspired, I don’t think we would need for it to be inspired, for it to be credible, because most of the Bible is historical narrative. And historical narrative can be true whether it’s inspired or not. You just have to have competent people who know what they’re talking about. and are honest, and they can tell history for you. And most of the Bible is history. Now, I believe that it’s history written by inspired authors. But whether they were inspired or not, the history is true if they’re competent and honest. And there’s certainly every reason to believe they are. But, you know, the proof of inspiration comes in those passages where the future is predicted and the things predicted came to pass. And that was true of a great number of things. many subjects, the fall of Babylon, the fall of the Assyrians, the fall of the Persians to the Greeks, the fall of the Greeks to the Romans. Those were all predicted. The destruction of the Moabites and the Edomites and the Ammonites by the Babylonians. All these things were predicted before they happened and before anyone could have known they would happen. So, I mean, there’s lots of things like that. Plus, of course, something like 300 prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled in him. And he made one of the most remarkable prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem. He said it would happen in that generation. Well, how would anyone know that? It did. It happened in 70 A.D., just 40 years after he said it. But how would anyone know that, that something like that’s going to happen within a generation? Anyway, I mean, this is commonplace in the Bible. It’s one of the reasons we know it is inspired. Well, I appreciate it. Thank you. Have a great day. God bless you. Okay, Craig. Good talking to you. God bless you, too. All right, Blue in Mesa, Arizona, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hi, Steve. Hi. Thank you for taking my call. Yeah. I do appreciate your ministry. My spiritual walk has gotten a lot better, and I have a lot more insight. My question is about angels in the sense in Hebrews 13, 2, where it says, show hospitality to strangers. Because by doing so, you may be showing hospitality to angels without knowing. So can angels take on human form? Or is it a spiritual form?
SPEAKER 06 :
They can if God wants them to. We don’t know if they have that prerogative or that ability inherent in their existence. But on occasion, when God has sent angels to speak to people, They have taken on the form that at least looks like human beings. Now, they weren’t actual human beings because human beings have human DNA and human parentage and ancestry and so forth. The angels didn’t have that. But they looked like humans, and they took on a human-like form. And this was by God’s design. He allowed them to do that. Whether angels could do that without God’s permission, we don’t know. I mean, some people think that bad angels can take on human form and marry human women and things like that. That’s how Genesis 6 in the opening verses is sometimes interpreted. But I don’t think that interpretation is bulletproof. I think it’s probably not a correct interpretation. But in any case, we don’t have any evidence in the Bible that ungodly angels can take on human form. That’s something that We know that God can make anything happen, including that. But whether they can make it happen to themselves, we don’t know. My apologies to John in Dallas, Texas, and Fred in Alameda, California, who will not be able to get on our program today. I wish we could. I wish we had more time. But we can only afford to buy an hour every day, and we’ve been doing it for 28 years. Hopefully you can call in Monday, and we can get to your calls then. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live Monday through Friday. At this same time, we are listener supported. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can donate from the website. Everything there is free. There’s a lot free. Or you can donate there at thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Have a good weekend.
