We delve deep into biblical prophecies and covenants, shedding light on Genesis 12:3’s relevance in modern times. Through insightful listener interactions, we unravel complex questions about Israel’s role in today’s theological controversies and the enduring implications of ancient scripture. As we navigate these faith-centric dialogues, Steve provides clarity on what it means to hold Amillennialist beliefs, offering a fresh perspective to seasoned and new believers alike.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour. Each weekday afternoon, including today, the last weekday of this week, And because we are live, you can call in if you want to talk on the air, if you have a question about the Bible or the Christian faith. Now let me just encourage you, don’t just call in because you want your voice to go out over the air. Call in if you actually have a question or if you disagree with the host. Those are pretty much the two things that we invite people to call about. If you have a question… We will attempt to answer it on the air. If you think that some previously answered question was incorrectly answered and you want to balance comment, we welcome that as well. And so you’re certainly also welcome to challenge the views of the host. But please, if you call, be aware of what it is you want to say. Obviously, I shouldn’t have to say that, but sometimes… We get more than one call in an hour where the person, once we put on the line, they’re still not sure what they’re trying to say or what their question is, or even if they have a question. So, I mean, it’s an open line, so we get all kinds. But let me just encourage you to, especially while you’re on hold, waiting to be put on the air, Make sure that you know what your question is and that you have some way of formulating it in a reasonably succinct way. So that’s what I ask. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Now, I’ve been making these announcements all week. This is the last day you’ll have to hear them from me. This weekend, I’m speaking five times in three places. Tomorrow, Saturday, all of them are in Southern California, by the way. If you’re in Southern California, this is for you. Tomorrow morning, a once-a-month Bible study for men in Temecula, 8 o’clock in the morning, which I teach. Tomorrow evening, a once-a-month Bible study in Buena Park, which is in Orange County, California. And that’s tomorrow night at 6. And by the way, we’ll be talking about two short books, the book of 2 John and the book of 3 John. All right. And then Sunday, I’m speaking three times in one church in Corona, California. That’s the Living Truth Christian Fellowship in Corona, California. I’ll be speaking in the morning service at 9 o’clock and another morning service at 11 o’clock. Both services, I’ve been asked to speak on the topic, Why I am Still a Christian. And if anyone is wondering why they are still a Christian or why they should be, you may want to join us there, 9 and 11. I’ll be giving the same message at the Living Truth Christian Fellowship in Corona. And then I’ll be speaking in the evening in the same church. At 6.30 there will be a Q&A. So that’s what’s happening this weekend. I’ve got a busy weekend. And I’d love to see any of you that happen to be free and want to come. Our lines are full, so I’m going to go directly now to the phones and talk to Ben, who’s calling from Detroit, Michigan. Ben, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 10 :
You’re welcome. So I don’t know if you can answer this correctly, and I’m sorry. I know you said earlier to have that, like, ready, but I’m autistic, and I’m I don’t really understand the gospel that well. Um, and my question is, um, how do we know that God is real? Because like, um, to me, I would have to like actually physically meet God, like go up to heaven and meet him. So how do we have faith that he’s,
SPEAKER 03 :
real like yeah well it’s not difficult to to believe that someone is real whom we’ve never personally run into who we’ve never seen uh almost everybody that i hear about in the news is someone I’ve never seen or met, and yet I believe they exist. Now, of course, you might say, well, you see them on television, you see their pictures. Okay, but what if I hadn’t seen them on TV? What if I just heard radio reports about them? Would it be impossible for me to believe they exist because I’ve never met them face-to-face? No, it would not be impossible. The question would be whether the information I’m hearing about them is coming from reliable sources. And that’s how we believe actually in anything, in history, for example. Anything that happened before we were born, if we know anything about it, we know it because somebody told us, somebody reliable, hopefully. We do vet sources, hopefully. If there’s any reason to question somebody’s assertion about something, then we should definitely be in a position to vet them. and see what authority they have, how much they know, are they competent witnesses, are they honest? Those are the kinds of things we’d want to know in order to be assured that something is true, historically or true somewhere in the world, like is Israel bombing Iraq today, or is Iraq bombing Israel? I don’t know because I haven’t heard the news, but later in the day I’ll probably hear. And if I hear the news today, You know, assuming I hear it from, say, more than one source, I’ll probably give it some credence and believe that I’m hearing a true report. Now, you can actually personally know somebody you’ve never seen because, for example, you could have a pen pal in another part of the world, someone you’ve never seen them. You write to them. They write to you. They send you birthday cards. They might even send you gifts. You might do the same back to them. And you could correspond with them for years and never see them face to face and still believe they exist. Now, of course, someone might say, well, how do you know they exist? Maybe someone’s pulling your leg. Maybe that person you’re writing to isn’t really who you think it is. Well, that is a possibility. I would have to assume that they had some motivation, that they had some kind of something to gain by deceiving me. And in any case, I would have to say, well, even if they’re not who I think they are, someone’s there. Somebody’s writing these letters. So in other words, I could be quite sure of there being a party on the other end. And I could even be fairly sure who that party is. without ever meeting him. Now, God is, I’m in sort of the same position with God. I’ve never seen him either. But I’ve got a lot of good witnesses from people who’ve known him. I’ve known him too, by the way, but I haven’t seen him with my eyes, just like I might know a penthouse. I can know them pretty well if we’ve been corresponding for a while. And so the question is, I guess, how likely is it that the God that I’ve been interacting with, the one who’s been active in my life, the one whom Jesus told me about, and Jesus seemed like an incredibly reliable witness on this subject, you know, the one that many people have lived their lives and experience with, that that’s the God that I’m talking to. That’s the God who’s active in my life. Now, someone could say, well, you don’t know that it is. Maybe I don’t know 100% that it is. I can say I don’t have any reason to doubt it. Here’s the thing. If someone says, well, I don’t know if God exists or not, Well, fair enough. We don’t know everything, and there are some things we don’t know, and one of those might be whether God exists or not. But I guess we could say, is there any evidence that would undergird a belief that God exists, and B, is there any evidence that would undergird the proposition that God does not exist? Those are kind of the two options, either he exists or he doesn’t. Now, I don’t know of any evidence that has ever come forward or could ever come forward that would prove that God doesn’t exist. People who are atheists, they’ve never produced anything that looks like proof that God doesn’t exist. What they say is we don’t need to believe in God. We can explain things that Christians have explained by appeal to God. We can explain those things without appeal to God. Well, fine. I wonder how many ways there are to do that. There might be lots of ways to explain things without appeal to God. But by doing that, you haven’t really touched the subject of whether God exists or not. So what if you can explain things without bringing God into your explanation? That doesn’t even begin to answer the question of whether God exists or It just means that you have found a way to try to make sense of things without believing that God exists. And yeah, I mean, some people have done that. And for them, the evidence that they see around them does not support the idea that there’s a God. And they can be, you know, they can hold that as an open question or they can jump to a very irrational conclusion. That he doesn’t exist. I would say the person who’s an agnostic could be honest. The person who’s an atheist is actually, of course, not really very intelligent at all because they’re trying to affirm a universal negative. And how do you prove that something doesn’t exist? You can’t prove by observation that something doesn’t exist. I could prove by observation that air doesn’t exist because I’ve never seen it. I could prove by observation that atoms don’t exist because I’ve never seen them either. No one has. So I could just say, well, they don’t exist. Well, maybe they do, maybe they don’t. My disbelief in them would not prove that they don’t exist. And my limited experience where I haven’t been able to prove they exist to myself in any scientific way, again, wouldn’t prove that they don’t exist. But, in other words, there is no possible proof that God doesn’t exist because whatever observed happens could happen whether God exists or not. So, in other words, the existence of God is an open question no matter what evidence is considered. On the other hand, positively… It is possible to prove that, you know, a positive statement. I mean, how much would you have to know, for example, to prove that God doesn’t exist anywhere in the universe? Well, you’d have to know everything that exists in the universe, wouldn’t you? I mean, you couldn’t. You’d have to say, I’ve been there. I’ve looked at everything. I’ve enumerated everything in the universe. I’ve seen it all. and God is not among the things that I’ve seen. Therefore, he doesn’t exist. But wait a minute, you haven’t seen everything in the universe. There’s many, many things that no man has ever seen yet. You know, when the Russians sent their cosmonauts, their astronauts into space, It is said that a schoolteacher of elementary school students in Russia, in the Soviet Union at the time, that she boasted to her schoolchildren, our brave cosmonauts went into space and they didn’t see God anywhere. And allegedly a little girl raised her hand and said, were they pure in heart? Which is a very profound question, because Jesus said, blessed are the pure in heart, they shall see God. He didn’t say, blessed are the people who’ve got the best telescopes or microscopes or who’ve got Geiger counters and can detect radioactivity. Who’s got the equipment for seeing God as he can be seen as a non-physical spiritual being? Well, Jesus said those who are pure at heart. In other words, he would be discerned some way other than through scientific apparatus, which are designed only to discern physical things. He’s not a physical thing. But even though you’d have to know everything to be assured that God doesn’t exist, you’d only have to know one thing to know if God does exist. In other words, for me to know that my wife is still living… And has not died since I saw her last I would just have to walk into the other room and see her and say okay I don’t need to know anything else but for me to prove that she You know is not living and I don’t know where she is and can’t find her I’d have to search everywhere to make sure that she’s not living somewhere So when you say in order to believe in God you would have to go up into heaven to see God Well, why would you have to do that? You don’t have to do that in other cases of believing in things you don’t see. The real issue is, why would you be reluctant? Now, in my opinion, though atheism has no evidence or proof in its favor, and I know because I’ve read their books, the best-selling books, I’ve read half a dozen of the atheist books that are out there currently, and they don’t have any evidence that God doesn’t exist. What they have is a dislike for God. That’s what they have. Their whole argument against God is, I don’t like that God. I don’t like the God of the Bible. He’s a homophobe, and I’m not. He wants everyone to worship him, and I find that to be egotistical. This and this and this I don’t like about God. Okay, well, you don’t have to like him, I suppose, but that doesn’t prove he doesn’t exist. There’s quite a few people living today that I don’t like very much, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. But there is some evidence, and I think pretty good evidence, for God’s existence. And, you know, even if it was not the kind of evidence that points indisputably toward the existence of God, it is certainly better than no existence at all, which is what the atheist has. The atheist has no evidence that there’s no God. the believer in God has quite a long list of evidences, which an atheist may say, well, I don’t see those as convincing. Well, it sucks to be you, I guess, because it’s good evidence, and you’re preferring to believe in something that has no evidence. So, Ben, I would just say, if you want to know God, he is findable. And I would actually say, if you want to know if God exists… Pray, ask him to guide your thinking and read the Bible and see if you discover him there. A great number of people do. I can’t guarantee that you will or won’t, but maybe you will. But you don’t have to go up into the sky and heaven to find him. If that were the case, nobody would be able to find him, and yet many people have. I appreciate your call, Ben. Thank you for joining us today. Slavic from Spartanburg, South Carolina. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Steve. I’ll ask my answer quickly, and then I’ll get off the air. So, as you know, Genesis 12.3 has been a topic of discussion among Christian circles lately and in the news as well. But I was wondering if – I thought that this – But that was the only place, you know, and I do believe that God was telling Abraham that whoever blesses you will be blessed and whoever curses you will be cursed. But then I also saw that in Genesis 27, Isaac, when he blesses Jacob, he also says the same thing to him. And then later in Numbers, when Balaam… He prophesies, he blesses Israel, and he says the same thing as well. You know, he blesses Israel and says exactly the same thing. So I wonder, is that just pertaining to Israel under the old covenant, or would you say that it’s all pertaining to true Israelites, you know? Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, yeah, I brought those scriptures up when we were discussing this not very long ago, a few shows ago. Although, of course, the fact that I guess Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson had an argument about that matter. By the way, for those of you who don’t know what Genesis 12-3 is, that’s the line where God said to Abraham, I will bless those who bless you. I will curse him who curses you. Now, Ted Cruz, who’s a dispensationalist, God bless him. I like Ted, but I don’t share in dispensationalism. He was saying that is a reason for us to support Israel in their conflicts with Iran at this present time. And Tucker Carlson, as I recall, said that, well… who’s Israel and why would you take that to refer to this particular battle? And as I recall, Ted didn’t really give an answer. If he did, I didn’t see that part of the interview. But it certainly is something that people do discuss, especially since dispensationalism is such a major popular view in the churches. The idea that when God said to Abram, whoever blesses you will bless, or that, as it says in Numbers 24, whoever blesses Israel will be blessed, and whoever curses them will be cursed. We have to realize that we’re talking about a people who were in a covenant relationship with God. It’s like if I said, you know, some, let’s say, 30 years ago, if I said, whoever insults my wife, they’ll have to answer to me. Well, okay. But the woman who was my wife at that time actually ran off with someone else and isn’t my wife anymore. Now, I don’t know how many people are insulting her, nor do I think much about it. She hasn’t been my wife for 25 years. And so, you know, I mean, I have a wife now. Same thing would be true now if someone insults my wife now. my current wife, then I would have to say, yeah, you’ll have to answer me for that. So, you know, Israel was related to God like a wife under the terms of the covenant that God made with them, which was made at Mount Sinai. And that covenant is over. There’s been a divorce, the Bible says, and there’s a new covenant with a new people made up of the faithful remnant of the original people. So, in other words, the people who were not faithful to God are no longer part of this covenant relationship with him. But the people who are faithful to him are. That’s through the new covenant. So I would say, you know, the commitment God had to vindicating Israel against anyone who would oppress them belongs to the people he’s in covenant with now, not the people he’s not in covenant with. The promise he made to Abraham, and that was stated by Balaam in Numbers about Israel, applied to the covenant people, the people that God had a covenant relationship with, not the people that he doesn’t have a covenant relationship with. Now, like I said, 30 years ago, I had a covenant relationship with a particular woman, and I had all kinds of promises and commitments I had to her. She ran off with someone else, divorced me. Then, okay, I don’t have that covenant with her anymore. It wasn’t my choice, but it was hers. And just the same, The broken covenant between God and Israel was Israel’s choice, not his. But it happened, and then God made a new covenant, just like I have got a new covenant with my wife today. It’s a different covenant with a different person. In the case of Israel, it was, you know, since Israel is a collective of people, you know, a lot of people, not just one, God’s wife, the collective, you know, the collective defined by the old covenant is as divorced. the collective defined by the new covenant is the one that he’s committed to now. So it would be very hard to argue that God would curse anyone who cursed Israel when God himself cursed them. I mean, Moses made it very clear that if they would violate the covenant that God made with them, God himself would bring many curses upon them, and he lists the curses. And if someone’s curious about those, You could look at Deuteronomy 28, beginning at verse 15, where God said, this is what Moses actually said, it was God speaking, But it shall come to pass, if you, Israel, do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all his commandments and his statutes, which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you. Cursed shall you be in the city. Cursed shall you be in the country. Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Cursed shall be the fruit of your body and the produce of your land. Blah, blah, blah. Lots of curses. And then he says in verse 45… Moreover, all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you until you are destroyed because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God to keep his commandments and his statutes which he has commanded you. And they shall be upon you. What are the curses? He says, and they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder and on your descendants forever. That’s Deuteronomy 28, 45 and 46. So God is the one who decreed that if they were disobedient to him, the curses would be upon them. So I doubt that he’d be at that stage saying, okay, but whoever curses you, I’m going to curse them. No, I myself am going to curse you, he says. I’m going to bring every curse upon you, and your descendants forever. That’s what God said. I didn’t make this up. I’m not an anti-Semite or anything like that. I’m just saying this is what God said, and I’m a Bible teacher. I didn’t write the Bible. I just teach it. And therefore, that’s what the Bible says. Now, the question is, has modern Israel been faithful to God’s covenant? Because it was if they don’t, that these curses would be upon them, God said. Well, no, they were never very faithful to the old covenant. We know they worshipped idols through most of their Old Testament history, but eventually he sent his son to make with them a new covenant, and they weren’t faithful to that either. They crucified him, and when he rose from the dead, he took the faithful remnant of them and made them his new people. And he put his spirit upon them at the day of Pentecost, and they began to grow into a great multitude of Jewish believers in Christ. Eventually Gentiles read it to them too, and I’m one of those Gentiles, and so are you probably. But the The point here is that this new people with the new covenant as their defining feature would have to be the ones that are not under the curse because the ones who reject Christ, and this would be true of Jews and Gentiles. This is not strictly against Jews. This is not anti-Semitic. This is just a statement about humanity, and Jews are human. Those who reject Christ are under a curse. Paul said that. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 16.22, he said, If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, accursed. Okay, well, do the Jews love Jesus Christ? The truth is some of them do, and some don’t. Most of them don’t. How many of the Jews in Israel today love Jesus Christ? Well, that can be quantified because there’s about 2%, a little less than 2% of the population of Israel that are Christians. The rest reject Christ. Now, of the 2% in Israel that accept Christ, two-thirds of them are Arabs, not Jewish. Only about one-half of 1% are Jewish who accept Christ in Israel. So the population of modern Israel is made up of 99.5%. Jews who reject Christ and one half of one percent receive Christ. So I’m on the side of the ones who receive Christ. You know, now, as far as the political conflicts between Israel and Iran, I think I’m on Israel’s side about this. Now, I don’t know everything that goes on. But at least from the news I’m getting, it seems to me like Israel is acting in their own self-defense and trying to eliminate the nuclear threat. Now, I know there’s people, including Christians out there, who think I’m very naive and think I’m not very well informed. And they may be right. But as I always say, I don’t know anything firsthand about what’s going on in the Middle East. I’m not there. So I depend on news sources. So having said what I have, while I’m not arguing that we should curse Israel at all, I don’t know that there’s some kind of ongoing obligation to bless Israel. But that being said, I can still be on Israel’s side in a given conflict, just like I’d be on America’s side in certain conflicts and against America’s position in some. I’m not a traitor, but I can’t approve of everything America ever did, nor everything Israel ever did. We’ve got to be, as Christians, our loyalty is to Christ, and we judge things according to righteousness and judgment and justice, not according to national loyalties, including Israel. I need to take a break, but we’ll be back in 30 seconds. We have another half hour, so don’t go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. Welcome to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Steve has nothing to sell you, but everything to give you. When today’s radio show is over, we invite you to study, learn, and enjoy by visiting thenarrowpath.com, where you’ll find free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all the Narrow Path radio shows. We thank you for supporting the listener-supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Remember, thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or a difference of opinion with the host, we always welcome you to join us. I can’t guarantee you’ll get in today because our lines appear to be full, but if you want to try a little later, the number to call is 844-484-5737. Our next call is from Michael in Englewood, California. Michael, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi, Steve. So I don’t really want to ask this question, but I would like to know, I think in Psalms 37, David said something about the righteous not being forsaken and the seed not being bred. But it kind of seems like maybe Elijah kind of begged for bread and the Israelites in the wilderness kind of begged for no bread but quail or something like that. And then also, of course, Jesus said, Eloi, lama sabachthani, on a cross. And thinking about the lady that called the other day who lost her two sons, I’m kind of like, I felt forsaken sometimes too. But was David talking to his own personal experience or was he actually saying, you know, people won’t have to beg for food and they won’t ever be forsaken?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, well, David doesn’t. He’s not stating a promise of God. He is stating giving a testimony. He’s saying, I have been old. I mean, I’ve been young and now I’m old. And yet I’ve never seen the righteous forsaken or his seed begging bread. I can actually say that, too. But that’s not promising anything. That’s simply giving a testimony. You know, I’ve actually seen. the faithfulness of God consistently around me and everyone else who’s trusting in him. Now, has there ever been a Christian who had to beg for bread? Could well be. I haven’t seen it. But I’m not saying it wouldn’t ever happen. That’s not some kind of guarantee. David is testifying that he’s been around a long time. And what he consistently has seen is that God provides for the righteous. Now, does that mean, you know, the righteous would never beg bread? Well, not necessarily. I mean, God might provide for them through begging. After all, you know, in Israel in Jesus’ day, There were a lot of beggars. There were some blind beggars that Jesus healed. There was lame beggars and so forth. It’s not saying they weren’t righteous. David, in his situation, didn’t see this thing happen. He lived in the capital city. Apparently, he knew of none of the beggars who were righteous people. Of course, he may have known very few people who were righteous people. In the Old Testament, they were pretty rare. But the point is, he’s not saying, you know, the righteous will never beg. Because that would suggest that everyone you see begging isn’t righteous. But it would mean that he has lived long enough to be confident that God takes care of his people. And in all the cases he knows, none of them have ever had to beg. Now, some of them, a lot of righteous people might be beggars. Or we might say some people who are left to begging might be righteous people. But David’s not saying that can’t be true. He’s saying the righteous people he has seen have not had to beg. But I believe he would say that if a person is righteous and a beggar, that is God providing for them, too, through begging. Just like if you get a job, that’s God providing for you through a job. I’m glad I’ve never had to beg, although I’ve been poor. Much of my life. But I’ve been young and now I’m older. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the righteous having to beg. But I don’t live in a country where there’s a lot of poverty either. So, you know, he’s not saying you will never anywhere in the world ever see a righteous man begging. He’s saying I’ve seen a consistent pattern of God taking care of his people. And in the cases I’ve seen, they’ve never even had to beg because God has provided for them through work or some other means. Now, yeah, God did tell Elijah to ask the widow of Zarephath to give him some bread. Okay, well, David wasn’t there. David was long dead before that happened, actually. So David didn’t see that. Are there other righteous people who beg bread? Yeah, I’m sure there are. And some of them, Elijah was actually told by God to do it. So I don’t think we’re supposed to take David’s testimony about this as anything more than an affirmation that he has seen the goodness of God in providing for his people very consistently. But in saying that none of the people he’s seen have ever had to beg bread, he’s not stating a universal that would reflect everybody’s experience. But that’s been his. And in a long lifetime, to not have seen that, Speaks of a general pattern that’s encouraging.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thanks.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right. Thank you very much. Let’s talk to Ben, another Ben. We had a Ben earlier today in Richardson, Texas. Hi, Ben. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, I was there at Preston Road when you spoke recently. I enjoyed your talk.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Just let you know that. Revelation 25 says, the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. And then it says, this is the first resurrection. Blessed or holy are those who share in the first resurrection, which I take meaning participating with Jesus, how you get into Christ, you know, like Romans 6. And anyway, my question is, do you think, I mean… This is saying that the thousand years is the first resurrection. Do you take that as that?
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s what I understand, yes.
SPEAKER 04 :
And so I guess that would be why you’re all millennialists. Yes. I’m so right. I thought it was kind of amusing what you said. It’s like you believed it because people taught you that. And then when you read the Bible, well, it wasn’t there.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, I was pre-millennial before, yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
I would say this is the proof text right here.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, obviously, pre-millennials would not see that as a proof text because they would say, well, you’re missing the whole point here. They would say the first resurrection is the resurrection of the Christians at the second coming of Christ and that only they have been resurrected through the entire millennial kingdom after Jesus comes back. But at the end of the millennium, The other dead, who were not righteous dead, will be physically resurrected. So they believe there’s two physical resurrections. They think the first resurrection is Christians being resurrected at the coming of Christ, and the second resurrection is non-Christians being resurrected at the end of the millennium, a thousand years later. Now, I don’t hold that view anymore. But, I mean, there’s an awful lot of verses in the Scripture that would make that interpretation of Revelation 20 contradict the rest of the things the Bible says about the resurrection and about, you know, the end of the world and things like that. For example, I mean, the same writer who wrote Revelation wrote John, chapter 5, and in John 5, verses 24 through 29, Jesus makes it very clear there’s only one resurrection and the hour is coming in which all who were in their graves would come forth, some to a resurrection of life, some to a resurrection of condemnation. That’s the good and the bad being resurrected at the same time. Paul said the same thing, essentially, in Acts 24, 15. He said he believes there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. A resurrection, not two, one resurrection of the just and the unjust. So, You know, the Bible does not teach, generally speaking, there will be more than one resurrection. But why does Revelation say this is the first resurrection? Well, if we’re correct, as all millennialists, he’s referring to the fact, as you pointed out, that we who are believers do receive a spiritual resurrection. We have passed from death unto life. According to John 5.24, Jesus said, He that hears my words and believes in him that sent me, has everlasting life now and will not come into condemnation, but has passed from death into life. Well, if I was spiritually dead before and I passed into spiritual life, that’s a resurrection. It’s a spiritual resurrection, not physical. But John’s gospel tells us that believers have this first resurrection. And Revelation, which was written by the same guy, said that this, what he’s looking at, is that first resurrection. 1,000 years is the age of regeneration, the age of the church, the age of salvation, as we know it in the New Covenant. That’s 1,000 years, although it’s really more than 1,000 years, but that’s symbolic. But when it says the rest of the dead do not live again, I’m understanding that to mean that because they have not experienced this first resurrection of regeneration, when they die, they are dead. And they don’t live again until the end of the world when all the bodies are raised. On the other hand, the believers, when they die, they live on. And he sees them sitting on thrones in heaven. He sees their souls, not their bodies. They’re not resurrected there. He sees the souls of those who are martyred sitting, reigning with Christ, which is in heaven where he reigns. So there’s a distinction. Believers die during this age and so do unbelievers. The believers who die live on in heaven with Christ until the end of the world. The unbelievers who die don’t live on and don’t live again until eternity. the resurrection at the end of the age. That’s what I think he’s saying. Now, by the way, there’s a bit of a problem with the word etzazon, which is the Greek word used here that in some translations says lived again, where in verse 5 says the rest of it did not live again until the thousand years were in. And he says that in verse 4, he says, I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded again. for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, blah, blah, blah. It says they lived again, some translations say. They lived again and reigned. However, the word lived again is an interpretation of the word etzazon, which means it can mean live again or it can just mean to live on. It’s basically an aorist, not to be too technical. It’s either… a constantive heiress or an aggressive heiress. And you can’t tell from reading it. I mean, it just depends on the context because it would look the same in the Greek, whichever. It’s an heiress. If it’s an aggressive heiress, it means they lived again. After they died, if it’s a constant of heiress, it means they lived on after they died. So the question is, is John saying these people died and then they lived again? Like, you know, afterwards, this is what encourages premillennials to think there’s two different comings to life from dead. Or does it mean they lived on? And I believe they lived on. So different translations render it differently. Usually the King James and the New King James translate it, they lived, meaning they lived on. They continued to live. Whereas more modern translations, which are translated by premillennialists, they translate it, they lived again. So that’s an option. They can go either way from the way it reads in the Greek. But, yes, you are correct. I am amillennial. Thank you for your call. We’re going to talk next to David from Dallas, Texas. Hi, David. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hello, Steve. How are you? Fine, thanks. Listen, Steve, I’m a Southern Baptist and have been since a wee boy. I’m 74 years old now. And I’ve stayed in that denomination, and I’m proud to say that I have.
SPEAKER 09 :
Mm-hmm.
SPEAKER 05 :
But here’s what my question is to you. I know you refer to yourself as a millennialist, and I take it that that’s what you mean, although I myself am not familiar with what all millennialists all believe. So could you state what the big difference is between the Southern Baptist beliefs and the amillennialist beliefs would be?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, you know, it’s interesting. I was raised Baptist, too, and I was not Southern Baptist. I was in a different Baptist denomination. There’s about 40 different Baptist denominations, but some of them are amillennialist, but I think most of them are not amillennialist. I think they’re more often dispensationalist. Now, the Southern Baptist, I think, used to be fairly predictably premillennial dispensationalist, though I heard, to my surprise, in a recent book, said that nobody who teaches at the Southern Baptist Seminary is dispensational, you know, which surprised me. But, yeah, I usually think of Baptists as dispensational.
SPEAKER 05 :
What are they then? Does it go on to state what they are?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, they may be amillennial or they may be historic premillennial. There’s different ways to look at eschatology. Okay. The historic premillennial.
SPEAKER 05 :
Amillennials can belong to any denomination. Is that right?
SPEAKER 03 :
That is true. That’s true. No, that’s true if they’re allowed to. If they’re allowed to.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, the subject of salvation itself, It does not exclude Amillennialists or any other group. I’m like you. I’ve heard you say that you believe that there are probably true Christians in every denomination and even every religion. I think like that also. So does that make me an Amillennialist?
SPEAKER 03 :
No, that’s not a requirement of amillennialism or premillennialism. That’s kind of a different set of convictions. And I’m not sure I would say there are true believers in every religion, but I think there may be some people in religions that have not yet heard of Christ who are seeking Christ and don’t know it. I don’t know.
SPEAKER 05 :
I think that’s what’s happening, yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, I don’t really, I don’t claim to have expertise in that since only God would know that. But… I do agree that there are Christians in every denomination, at least every denomination I’m aware of. There are some Christians there, and they don’t all have the same eschatology. The amillennial view, by the way, was the view held by virtually all Christians for 1,500 years. Oh, that’s good. Many of the early Christians for the first three centuries were premillennial Christians. though they were not, like many modern premillennialists, they were not dispensationalists. They didn’t believe in the distinctives of dispensationalism, but they did believe Jesus will come back and establish a millennial reign. And we call those people who think like that, we call them historic premillennials because they agree with people like Irenaeus and Tertullian and Justin Martyr and Papias.
SPEAKER 05 :
Do you believe in the Bible where it says he will establish a thousand-year reign? Do you not believe that’s going to happen or what?
SPEAKER 03 :
The only place that mentions a thousand-year reign is in the chapter we were just talking about earlier, Revelation 20. Apart from that chapter, there’s no mention in the whole Bible of a thousand-year reign, but there is in that chapter. Now, the question is, how is that chapter interpreted? And I used to be, when I was a premillennialist, I interpreted it to mean that Jesus will come back, he’ll bind Satan for a thousand years, and this millennial reign will be here on earth before the end of the world, but after the second coming of Christ. That’s called premillennialism. Amillennialism teaches that the binding of Satan is something Jesus mentioned when he was talking to the Pharisees in Matthew 12. He said that he had bound the strong man and was plundering his house by casting demons out of people. He meant the strong man is Satan and he was plundering Satan’s domain by casting demons out of people and he said he had bound him. He had bound the strong man and that’s the very language that revelation uses now when we talk about satan being bound at the first coming of christ we don’t mean that he’s literally bound the book of revelation and even jesus comment there is not absolutely literal um i mean satan was still wandering around at that time yeah he wasn’t bound at the first coming well that’s the second coming Well, that’s the premillennial view, and a person is certainly entitled to believe that way. But what I would suggest is that when Jesus said he had bound the strong man, he wasn’t speaking of an absolute… binding, but he was speaking of having reduced Satan to the position of being unable to resist Christ’s activities and his movement. That’s why he could go, just like if I were wanting to rob your house and you were sitting, you know, totally free with a gun across your lap, you could probably easily prevent me from doing that. But if somehow I had gotten an advantage over you and tied you up in a closet or something, then I could probably rob your house without resistance. So that’s what Jesus is saying. He has bound the strong man and is plundering his house. He simply means he has rendered Satan incapable of resistance to Christ’s agenda and to Christ’s movement and what he’s doing. And I believe that Frankly, I believe that the binding of Satan in Revelation is that same binding and means the same thing. I don’t think it means that Satan is literally sitting in a bottomless pit with a chain on. Actually, I don’t believe that Satan is such a being as could be bound with an actual chain. He’s a spirit. So, I mean, this is very symbolic. In fact, in Revelation 20, the person who is bound in Revelation 20, verses 1 through 3, is not even said to be Satan. Later, he is said to be Satan, but he’s said to be a dragon and a serpent. Now, Satan is not a literal dragon or a literal serpent. He’s a spirit. We’ve got a symbolic thing going on described here. And what it is saying, that the Amillennial thinks that Satan was bound in that sense when Jesus came the first time. And anyway, rather than go into that in detail right now, because I’ve got my lines full and we’ve got only not many minutes left, I’d recommend that if you’re curious about that, you can go to the website thenarrowpath.com. And there you’ll see a tab that says Topical Lectures. And if you click on the tab that says Topical Lectures, you’ll find a lot of lectures. But there’s several different series of lectures listed alphabetically. And near the end of that list is going to be one called When Shall These Things Be? That is my 14-lecture series on eschatology. But you don’t have to list all 14 lectures. There’s some of them, one or two of them, that are about the millennium. And I would suggest that, so if you go to thenarrowpath.com, click on the tab that says Topical Lectures, find the series called When Shall These Things Be, and then open that series and you’ll see the lectures about the millennium. If you listen to those, you’ll get a much fuller grasp of what I’m talking about than I can give you here, even if I had the whole hour, which I don’t.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right. Great help today. Thank you. See you very much.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, David. Good talking to you. God bless you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Bye-bye. Bye now.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, Sam from Atlanta, Georgia. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, I was wondering if you’ve written anything about or would have an answer to this question. Is there a biblical explanation for why Jesus was crucified on Passover instead of like the Day of Atonement?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I don’t know if I have a whole lecture on that or writing on it, but I think it’s understood. that the Passover was instituted 1,400 years before Christ to be a picture of Christ’s death. The Passover was a lamb that was killed, and it resulted in the liberation of God’s people from captivity. And remember John the Baptist referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. And so Jesus’ death, which liberates us, was foreshadowed in the Passover ritual. And every year when the Jews celebrated the Passover, They may not have realized it, but the Bible suggests that they were anticipating, by their ritual, they were anticipating Jesus’ death. So his actual death, when it occurred, did occur during the Passover season and the Passover day. Why not on the Day of Atonement, which was later in the month, in September or so? Well, it also foreshadowed something. And as I understand it from reading Hebrews 9, it would appear that, remember, on the Day of Atonement, the priest went into the Holy of Holies, beyond the veil. The only time in the whole year that anyone was allowed to go in there, the high priest went there with some blood from animals, and he sprinkled it on the mercy seat. Later, he came out again, and it was a proof that, you know, all was well, all had been accepted, and so forth. Now, the writer of Hebrews suggests that when Jesus ascended into heaven, he was like the high priest going into the Holy of Holies, and that when he comes back, he’ll be like the high priest coming back out of the Holy of Holies, so that the whole age of the church, as we might call it, from the time Jesus ascended till the time he returns, is symbolized by the day of atonement, which is probably why it says in 2 Corinthians, today is the day of salvation. Now is the appointed time. Today is the day of salvation. It’s the day of atonement. The whole age of the church, I believe, is the day of atonement, or at least the fulfillment of that ritual. And so it’s a different thing than the crucifixion of Christ. It’s rather his going into heaven to intercede for his people on the basis of his shed blood. which is what the high priest did on the Day of Atonement. But he’s still behind the veil. He’s still in heaven, the true Holy of Holies. But he will emerge from there, we’re told. And when he does, that’ll be like the high priest coming out of the Holy of Holies later in the same day. So that one day, the activities of that one day represent the entire 2,000 years of Christ’s being in heaven interceding for us.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay. Yeah, I was just wondering, because I was teaching recently on the Day of Atonement, and it just dawned on me, why wasn’t Jesus… So many commentators say it depicts, you know, Jesus’ sacrifice, and even Hebrews, he talks about how he was one priest that… didn’t have to keep doing this year after year and that sort of thing. So it just kind of made me wonder why didn’t… Right.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, what Hebrews is saying there is that in the Jewish order under the Old Covenant, the high priest had to do this ritual on the Day of Atonement every year. And in chapter 10 of Hebrews, it says, you know, if that was the whole that God had in mind, if he didn’t have in mind something better than that system, then it… well, then Jesus wouldn’t have had to come. But Jesus doesn’t have to repeat this every year. He said the high priests stand daily offering the same sacrifices. He said if any time they had done this would have permanently solved the problem of sin, then they wouldn’t have to repeat it every year, the writer of Hebrews says. So he’s talking about the Day of Atonement. They wouldn’t have to every year do this because the high priests in the Old Testament would have accomplished this. what Jesus accomplished, but which was not possible for them to do. But Jesus has accomplished it, and that’s why he doesn’t have to do it again. That’s why we don’t have to have an annual occasion of a Day of Atonement. We have one Day of Atonement that Christ accomplished once and for all. So anyway, the way that Jesus fulfilled the various events in the Jewish festival calendar is a very involved study. I actually do have some lectures on that. There’s a set of lectures at our website on the tabernacle. And I believe I also have in that series a treatment of the festivals, including Day of Atonement. If it’s not in that series on the tabernacle, you could at least find it. if you go to the verse-by-verse lectures at my website on Leviticus 16. So one of those things would go into that in more detail than I can here. My apologies to, my goodness, we have four people waiting who are not getting on today. I apologize. I wish we had two hours. In fact, I wish we could do this all day, but we cannot. So I’ll be back Monday, and we’ll do it some more. Hope to call back then. Remember, this weekend I’m speaking five times in Southern California. If you’re in Southern California and want to know where and when I’m speaking, go to our website, thenarrowpath.com and look under announcements. The tab there will have all of these listed. The Narrow Path is listener supported. You can check out how to help us out if you wish by also going to our website, thenarrowpath.com. Have a good weekend. God bless you.
