In this thought-provoking episode, Steve Gregg delves deep into the enigmatic chapters of Revelation, exploring John’s vision and discussing the timeline of fulfillment. Listeners call in with their questions on history, ethics, and personal Christianity, revealing diverse perspectives that enrich the discussion. A highlight of the episode is a debate on the sealing of prophecies and the implications for future generations.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live as we usually are Monday through Friday at this time, taking your calls if you have questions about the Christian faith or about your own, well, about the Bible, your own Christian experience, whatever, Christian history, Christian ethics, those kinds of things. I would be glad to talk. We’ve got a very broad scope of things that we’re willing to talk about here. Also, if you’re of a different viewpoint from the host, maybe theologically you’re of a different view, but you’re a Christian, or you’re not a Christian, and maybe you actually have some serious challenges or difficulties with the Bible, feel free to give me a call. You’re always welcome to do that. We have an hour together here, commercial free. There’s a phone number I’m going to give you, and… Right now there’s one line open, but if you – oh, no, it just looks like it just got occupied. But if you call and all the lines are full, just keep the number handy and call back in a few minutes and you may find a line has opened, which will, of course, continually happen throughout the program. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. All right. Our first caller today is Craig calling from Auburn, Washington. Craig, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good afternoon, Steve. I’ve listened to your lectures on Revelation. I’ve got two questions that are related. In Revelation chapters 11, 12, and 13, is John telling his audience what he was told to seal up and not even write down from chapter 10? I think not.
SPEAKER 02 :
Go ahead.
SPEAKER 08 :
Go ahead.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, hold on to your next question. On my lectures, as you know, I mentioned that chapters 11, 12, and 13 stand out from the rest of the book. I think in subject matter and in time of fulfillment from the rest of the book because it is the only section in the book that repeatedly refers to a period of time, which is variously called 42 months or 1260 days, time, time, time, time. And that period of time is mentioned. five times in chapters 11, 12, and 13, but nowhere else. And I also believe, as you know, that chapter 10 introduces that section where John sees a little book opened in the hand of the angel, and he’s told to eat it. And when he does eat it, he’s told, you must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings. Now, what you’re referring to is the fact that when the angel spoke in chapter 10, seven thunders uttered their voices in chapter 10, verse 3. And John was about to write down what they said, but he was told in verse 4, seal up the things which the seven thunders uttered and do not write them. Now, I have suggested that the seven thunders obviously have something to do with the contents of this little book that he eats. I mean, he sees the angel holding the book open, The book is the focus of Chapter 10, and he’s told seven thunders out of their voices. And I’m making this point, not for your sake, but for those who don’t know what I teach, because you are listening to my lecture, so you know. But I believe that the fact that he’s told to seal up the seven thunders, what they said, is deliberately in contrast to what he’s told in Chapter 22, Verse 10, about the whole book. Don’t seal it up. because the time is at hand. Just like Daniel was told to seal up his book because it wasn’t going to have a soon fulfillment, the opposite is true. In Revelation 22.10, John is told, don’t seal it up because the time is at hand. So the sealing up of a prophecy was related to whether or not it was going to be immediately fulfilled. If you sealed it up, it was to preserve it until a later time when it would be relevant. If you’re not sealing it up, it’s because the relevant time is now. That’s what he’s told. But the seven thunders, unlike most of the book of Revelation, are sealed up. Now, we’re not told they’re sealed up because they will be fulfilled at a later date, but since this is the contrast I see between the little book and the whole book of Revelation, the little book I take to be that section in the middle, the chapters you mentioned, I’m thinking that it’s saying that the little book does have things in it that are relevant to a much further out fulfillment from John’s day. Unlike the majority of the book of Revelation, which I think was largely to be fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem, I think these chapters, it is suggested, are not going to be fulfilled quite so soon. That is to say, they are not… at least their fulfillment will not be exhausted in the near future, but they have relevance to things much further off. Now, my suggestion, based not only on that statement, but also on what is said to him later in chapter 10, when he says, in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he’s about to sound, the mystery of God will be finished, as he declared to his servants, the prophets. Now, Paul indicated that the mystery of God that was revealed to the apostles and prophets is the body of Christ, the Jews and the Gentiles being combined in one body. So when the seventh trumpet sounds, the mystery of God is completed, which is the age of the church, I would think, is over. So in my opinion, this little book, covers the time, in my opinion, from John’s day until the end of the world, which is like a couple thousand years. Now, of course, the time period mentioned I take totally symbolically, but what you’re asking is if indeed chapters 11 through 13 contain the contents of this little book, then was John disobedient because he was told not to write down the seven thunders? Well, my thought is no. I don’t think he was disobedient. I believe that I believe that the Seven Thunders are not the entire contents of the little book. I believe the little book is largely comprised of these chapters. But in addition to the book, there are these Seven Thunders that are related to them in some way, which I suspect are sealed up only as a code way of saying… There’s a lot here that isn’t going to be revealed, but here is what is being revealed. But the time frame is not going to be immediately completely fulfilled. Okay.
SPEAKER 08 :
So what was sealed up was okay to be sealed up and not to bolt. In the little book, there was more to the little book than the thunder would involve.
SPEAKER 02 :
And again, the sealing up of the seven thunders, does not tell us how long they’d be sealed up or what their contents actually are. Daniel was told to seal up his prophecy, and yet that didn’t prevent him from writing out the prophecy. He wrote it, but it was sealed as it were to be preserved until a later date when it would be relevant. We’re not told that these are sealed up for that purpose, but I’m going to take the imagery of sealing a book to convey that general idea. But his writing those chapters, I think, those are not the seven thunders themselves, but they are, I believe, related to the seven thunders because those are introduced along with this book.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. I feel better. Thank you. That clarifies it quite a bit. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, Craig.
SPEAKER 08 :
Have a great afternoon.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. You too. Bye-bye. Bye now. Okay. Juan in Vallejo, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey, Steve. Hope all is well. I just had a quick question for you. Sure. So my question would be, so just in context, we’ve been participating in the church for about three years now. It’s a small church. And the main leader, last pastor, is a good friend of mine, former co-worker. And he stepped down. He stepped down not too long ago. And he wouldn’t specify why. And eventually he told me he – well, actually his wife told my wife that he committed adultery. So he cheated on her. Now, with that being said, he stepped down, I want to say, six, eight months ago, possibly a little bit more, and nobody knew why. Nobody knew why. Nobody really asked why. So I guess my question would be – Do you think it would be the right thing for it to come to the light? Because we want to talk to him, me and my wife. And it’s a small church. We feel the rest of the church should know why.
SPEAKER 02 :
Before you do that, let me just say that he stepped down from the ministry. Did he also leave the church, or is he just going to be a member of the congregation now and not in leadership?
SPEAKER 06 :
Exactly. So now, he was the pastor’s teacher, and he leads the worship. So he stepped down as pastor, and eventually somebody else kind of took over, and he leads the worship now. But he doesn’t want anybody to know. So now my question would be, it’s kind of a tough one, and that’s why I wanted to call you, because my wife feels that um he didn’t he’s still not repentant um not by just by he just doesn’t doesn’t show it at all so i guess that’s why i’m calling you what are your thoughts on should we rebuke him as far as like a good rebuke us that it should come to the light that the church should know because there’s a few elders above him that have no clue what’s going on so um yeah and we want to know What do you think the right thing would be to do?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, you know, if he was broken over his sin, if he’s totally renounced it, if he stepped down and was not going to be doing public ministry, but he was going to take precautions not to fall anymore or whatever, there might be a better case than there is. for keeping it a secret. I mean, in a sense, we don’t need to publicize every sin that someone commits, though adultery is a big one. It’s a big sin, and if it’s not made known, it’s possible that, you know, I don’t know, people will not know he may be a predator, you know, and people need to be warned about that. On the other hand, if it is made known, it also is publicizing the sin of the of the person he had committed adultery with, um, which is not something that, you know, should be totally avoided. but you just have to realize that making his son sin public is also going to have an impact on the woman. Is the woman married to somebody else?
SPEAKER 06 :
No, no, she’s, they’re still married. And, um, They’re trying to work on it now. You know, they’re trying to work on it.
SPEAKER 02 :
No, I mean the woman that he committed adultery with. Is she married?
SPEAKER 06 :
Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, she was.
SPEAKER 02 :
Does her husband know?
SPEAKER 06 :
No, no, no. No, he doesn’t. He doesn’t. I mean, I don’t know them, but he told me, you know, and their husband don’t know.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, this is quite messy. It’s… I think that he should, first of all, step down even from leading worship. I don’t think he should be in public ministry having fallen, even if he’s fully repentant, even if he’s totally brokenhearted and won’t ever do such things again. I mean, he fell in a weak moment and so forth. I think he should still step down from all public ministry until he can regain trust, at least from those who know of his sin. Now, if he’s continuing to try to promote his ministry in any sense in the church, then definitely it should be made public. And maybe even if he’s not. It’s really hard. It’s hard to know because the circumstances. I mean, if you make it known that, of course, this woman that he was with, her marriage is going to be hurt. On the other hand, if I were her husband, I think I’d wish to be informed if my wife had done it. You know, I mean, in other words, keeping the secret from him doesn’t seem very good. So this is a very messy kind of thing. I would at least suggest… that you pursue the matter privately and then you have to decide at some point whether something more has to be done publicly about it. But I would say that you should tell him that you’re going to have to speak to this woman and her husband and that he, that is the pastor, former pastor, should do so too, should actually be with you. I think that since you and your wife know of the situation, and the pastor’s wife knows, ex-pastor’s wife knows, right? Okay, there’s three people besides the pastor himself who know about this, well, four, because the woman knows. I don’t think her husband should be left in the dark about this. Now, it may be that you should speak to the woman without her husband present first to see if she has spoken to him about it or if she will. You know, I think the ideal would be that she’s repentant, she tells her husband about it, and they, you know, work that out among themselves. If she’s not repentant, then, you know, then there may have to be some, the next step may be to let her husband know. I mean, if he’s got an unrepentant adulteress as a wife, I think he has the right to know that. Uh, but I would, I try to cover this as I would cover this as privately as it is. It may be permitted to be covered. I mean, if everybody truly repents and, and rearranges their, uh, habits in such a way as they don’t, they’re not vulnerable to falling in a similar situation. Uh, it may not be necessary to tell the whole church, especially if he’s stepped down from public ministry. Um, But if he isn’t stepping down from public ministry, then I believe, then I think the whole church has every right to know about it. And, of course, he must step down, of course, from public ministry.
SPEAKER 06 :
That makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense.
SPEAKER 02 :
I mean, even if he’s repentant. I mean, if he’s truly repentant, he will have no objection to stepping down. You know, I mean, truly. You remember the prodigal son when he finally repented. As Jesus described his repentance, he said, I’m no longer worthy to be your son. Make me only like a servant. He was basically saying, I have betrayed your trust, and I’m not worthy to be trusted in my former capacity anymore. And in this man’s case, his capacity was as pastor and worship leader and the public face of the church. This is, of course, if the scandal would come out publicly, the best thing that can happen is for him to say, yeah, I’ve already talked to all the parties privately about it. I’ve repented about it. You and your wife and others should be able to testify that he has done so. In other words, I think within a small group, the other elders should be brought in too, by the way. You say there’s some elders above him. Yeah, they don’t know. Yeah, they don’t know.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, they don’t know. We’re the only ones that know just because we’re kind of friends.
SPEAKER 02 :
Let me make this suggestion. We don’t have exact guidance about this, but I would try to take this in the Matthew 18 situation. I mean, it’s not exactly the same as Matthew 18, but we could follow the principle. Keep it private as much as possible. It may, you know, information may have to be spread further if it’s not resolved in a good way. So let me suggest this. Let me suggest this, that you and your wife first speak with the woman involved because, okay, the pastor and his wife.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, we don’t know her. Sorry, I should mention that. Oh, she’s not in a church?
SPEAKER 02 :
No, she’s not part of the church. Oh, okay. Okay, then that’s a little different. then the pastor should speak to them. I mean, the offender himself. He should call her and have her husband on the line. I mean, this is going to be as painful as pulling teeth, but it’s still a matter of being honest, you know. And they should clear that up. Now, This is always a difficult thing. But the elders of your fellowship should certainly be brought in on it. That’s exactly what I was thinking. How can they be thought to be the leaders in the church if they’re not letting know something as significant as this about their leader?
SPEAKER 06 :
That’s why me and my wife wanted to bring it up because it’s These leaders that are above him, they come from another city a few cities away. They come maybe once a month, you know. And it’s like, in my opinion, like how long can you keep this a secret? They come look at you in the eyes and they tell you, hey, how’s it going? How’s everything going? I just feel like they should know.
SPEAKER 02 :
Once he has stepped down from all public ministry, there would seem to be nothing to lose by bringing them in. They can’t yank him out of ministry. You know, because he’s already done that to himself. But I think, yeah, this is these kinds of things. It’s so ugly that these things happen. But, yeah, I would say that now you’ve talked to him or he doesn’t know that, you know.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, no, he actually brought it to my attention. He told me about it.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. OK, OK. So I would say the other elders, he should step down from all public ministry. For the time being, maybe for a long time, depends on how long it takes to win the trust of his wife and others.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
And the other elders should be let know. As far as the woman and her husband who aren’t in the same state, that’s a little more difficult to know how to handle that. But the pastor himself, I think the pastor himself should contact her husband and repent.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah. To him. Definitely. All right. Well, that helps a lot. I appreciate you, man.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Well, God bless you, Juan. God bless you. God bless your situation. God bless you, too. Okay, wow. Let’s talk to Jim in Sacramento, California. A lot of California people today. Hi, Jim. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Good afternoon, Steve.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hey, it’s you. How are you doing? Your phone is all crackly. Your phone is all crackly. Are you on a cell phone or some other kind of phone?
SPEAKER 05 :
I’m on a handheld phone. I’m at the…
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Well, listen, it’s crackling and it’s a bad connection, but go ahead and quickly give me your question and I can answer you. I’ll just turn the sound off so we don’t have to hear you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 02 :
What is your question?
SPEAKER 05 :
What I wanted to know is we’ve identified in a lot of our studies of Revelation the beast… and 666 and being Claudius Nero Kaiser or Caesar. But my question is, who is or was the false prophet?
SPEAKER 02 :
All right.
SPEAKER 05 :
How do we identify him?
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s a very good question. Let me try to make my view clear on this. And I say my view… with emphasis because there’s lots of views, okay? There’s lots of views out there different from mine. Now, I will say this about my view. It is not the last word on the subject, and I could be wrong. However, I’ve not reached it lightly or quickly or followed slavishly what anyone else has said. You probably know I’ve done a lot of work on the Bible in general and also in the book of Revelation, and so my view is informed by my general studies of the Bible, including Revelation, but but I’m not infallible. My view is that the beast that comes out of the sea, which is the first beast in Revelation 13, it is a conglomerate of all four of the beasts of Daniel that came out of the sea in Daniel chapter 7. There was a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a ten-horned beast. Well, this beast that comes out of the sea in Revelation 13 has the mouth of a lion, the feet of a bear. the body of a leopard, and has ten horns, as well as seven heads. Now, we’re told that the seven heads are seven kings and seven, well, many people, and seven mountains. But in Revelation 17, I think it’s verse 10, it says that these are seven kings, which, in my opinion, probably refers to seven emperors. And we’re told five have fallen. One now is. That is to say, when John was writing to his audience, one of those emperors was current. Five had receded into the past, and there was one present, and there were more to come. So he said, there are seven kings. Five have fallen. One, meaning the sixth, now is, and another is yet to come. Now, Nero was the sixth person who was regarded as an emperor of Rome. But he’s only part of a larger beast now. The beast has got seven heads and ten horns, and the ten horns, we’re told in chapter 17, are also ten kings. So the beast is not an individual, although… There are individuals who become manifestations of the beast at different points in time. The beast has all the characteristics of Satan. The dragon in chapter 12 is red, has seven heads, and ten horns. The beast in the next chapter is also red and has seven heads and ten horns. The redness is not mentioned until chapter 17, but it’s the same beast. In other words, the beast is a thinly disguised Satan. And I believe the beast represents Satan’s efforts at all times throughout the whole church age. to masquerade himself or to work through the agency of political systems. This would include the Roman Empire. This would include the communist countries. This would include any political system that has persecuted Christianity historically are part of that larger beast. And that beast is made up of many kings. Ten horns are ten kings. Seven heads are seven kings. So I believe that we’re talking about not just one person at one time. We’re talking about every time. Every time Satan manifests himself as a political system, that’s the larger beast. But in John’s day, Nero was the emperor who was the manifestation of that beast in the lives of his readers. His readers were in the Roman Empire. And so that’s why his number 666 is given for them, that Nero was that head, that manifestation of the beast at the time, sort of like a hydra with lots of heads, You know, you kill one head, there’s more where that came from. In fact, that’s true of this beast. You know, one of his heads was killed, had received a mortal wound. But there were more where that came from. So the beast never dies, not until Jesus comes back and is thrown in the lake of fire. But the beast doesn’t die. He loses heads, but there are other heads where they came from. And the head that was currently manifestation of that beast dies. in John’s day was Nero. But the beast is a larger concept. Now, the second beast, I take in a very similar way, except not as political, but religious. I take it as a false religious phenomenon that supports the false political phenomenon. There’s almost always, almost every political system has had its own priesthood and its own religion until modern times. And so I believe what it represents is the fact that false religions also animated by Satan. Because the second beast has horns like a lamb, which makes it like Jesus in a way. I mean, masquerading as Jesus. But it has a mouth like a dragon. In other words, it’s like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or it’s like a dragon in sheep’s clothing. It speaks for Satan. I believe just like the first beast represents all political manifestations of Satan’s opposition to the church, the second beast represents all politics. Satan’s religious opposition to the church through false religions. I have to take a break here. I hope that’s helpful to you, Jim. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website’s thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be right back. We have another half hour. 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 02 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and as in our first half hour, we begin a second half hour where you can call in with your questions or disagreements at this number. By the way, before I give the number, at the beginning of the program, a half hour ago, all the lines were full. At the moment, all the lines are open. So this is a great time to get through. The number to call is 844-484-5737. We didn’t take all the calls that were on there before, but some of them dropped off, so we have all open lines right now. Good time to call 844-484-5737. Now, we were talking to Jim at the end of the last half hour, and I felt kind of rushed at the end because we came to a hard break. I’m going to just revisit briefly his question. He was acknowledging that he believed that the beast in Revelation 13, the first beast that comes out of the sea, represented Nero. And he was identifying Nero with the number 666. And I tend to agree with him. I believe 666 does refer to Nero, but I believe the beast itself, of which Nero was simply one of the heads. There were seven heads and ten horns, and all the heads are said to be kings, and all the horns are said to be kings. So there’s a lot of kings here. The beast is not one man. The beast is an entity, a phenomenon that manifests itself. Throughout history, in different men, different kings, different political systems. And that’s what I believe to be true about the first beast in general. Now, Jim’s question is, well, who’s the false prophet? Now, I didn’t mention the term false prophet, but the book of Revelation identifies the false prophet as the second beast. I did make reference in my answer to Jim to the second beast, but many people may not realize the second beast, which is the latter part of Revelation 13. is also later in Revelation. For example, in chapter 16 and in chapter 19, referred to as the false prophet. So when Jim asked about who’s the false prophet, I just took that as synonymous with the second beast. So I answered in terms of the second beast. My answer there was that just as I believe the first beast represents the political… incarnation of Satan throughout history, how he takes on the form of anti-Christ political governments to persecute the church and try to destroy it. And any time that happens in history, that’s another head or another horn or another manifestation of this same beast. It’s all one thing throughout the whole age of the church. So also, the second beast, or the false prophet, is the same thing, only of a religious sort. False religion, heresy, and so forth. It masquerades as true faith, has the horns of a lamb, or in Revelation, the lamb is Christ, but its mouth is the mouth of a dragon, which means Satan, speaks like Satan. So I believe that the two beasts, the first one being political and the second one being religious, represent phenomena that endure through the entire age of the church, through which Satan repeatedly opposes the church through persecution from political systems and through deception through false religion and heresy. And by the way, when you study church history from the very beginning, you find that the two things that were the greatest challenge to the survival of the church, at least in the first three centuries… were physical persecution from persons like the Roman empires and other governmental officials. On the one hand, so that’s like the first piece. And the other thing that was a great threat to the church, especially in the first three centuries, was false Christianities coming up, heresies, Gnosticism and many other heresies that they faced, or false religions. So what I think Revelation is suggesting is that false religions that are seeking to destroy the church through compromising their beliefs and political entities that try to stamp out the church through persecution Those are what the church has faced from the beginning and, frankly, still faces today, and they are represented by these two beasts. That’s my understanding. Now, those of you who have a totally different understanding, I can understand some of the objections you might make, like, well, why does the beast blaspheme for 42 months or 1,260 days? That’s not as long as the church age has been. or why does it say that the second beast makes an image of the first beast and requires everyone to worship it? And what about this taking the mark on the hand and the forehead? And I would say I answer all those things in my lectures. My lines are filling up, and I will tell you, I know how long it takes for me to answer those questions. So I would recommend to you, if you have further questions about that, that you access my lectures. They’re free at the website. at thenarrowpath.com. We have my verse-by-verse lectures through the Bible, the whole Bible, including Revelation. And you don’t have to take anything else except the book of Revelation if you want. Just skip to it and listen to the lectures on that, especially the lectures beginning at Revelation chapter 10. That would be what I would recommend. All right, let’s talk to Susan in Kokomo, Indiana. Hi, Susan. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hi. Hi. I have a question. I was listening to someone earlier today, and I’ve never heard of anything like it, but I knew that you probably would know. It’s called Revelation of the Mystery, Rightly Dividing the Scripture, like Jesus did. Age of Grace, Dispensation of God, and he talks about how Christians are wrong about being born again, and I was wanting to know And he always talks about Paul’s gospel.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Well, I’m not… Who’s the author?
SPEAKER 10 :
I don’t know his name. It just said Bible videos. He’s an older gentleman.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Well, he is a dispensationalist, and he is very possibly what you call a mid-axe dispensationalist or hyper-dispensationalist. Dispensationalists believe that all of time… has been divided up into seven dispensations, and that the church age is one of those dispensations. The age of the law was a previous dispensation, and there were others. They believe the millennium is a yet-to-come dispensation, and so forth. So they break up history into distinct periods of time. That’s what they mean by dispensations, different periods of time. And they believe that in these periods of time, there are distinctive things happening. that God is requiring people to do, and you’re not required to do the same thing in every dispensation that was required in other dispensations. Now, frankly, there’s a measure of truth in some of this. Certainly we’re not, in our present day, we’re not required to do the things that the Jews were supposed to do under the time of the law. So, I mean, I’m not saying everything about these observations is, bunk, but the problem with it is some of the applications that have been made from the very beginning of this doctrine, which began in the 1830s, it was taught by many dispensationalists that the teachings of Jesus, for example, the Sermon on the Mount, you know, are not even being born again. When he’s talking to Nicodemus, this was talking to the Jews who And he was trying to introduce a dispensation of the kingdom. And so what Jesus taught was relevant to a dispensation they called the dispensation of the kingdom. Now, their view is that the Jews rejected the gospel, and therefore it was postponed. The kingdom and its dispensation will not be relevant until Jesus comes back. and they identify the kingdom with the future, millennium. And so they would say the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and things like that, they will be applicable during a millennial reign after Jesus comes back. Now, I don’t agree with any of this. But they would say that between the time that the Jews rejected Christ and the time that Jesus returns, we have, of course, the age of the church. And unlike the age of law, we’re not under the Mosaic law. This is the age of grace, they would say. And we’re saved by faith alone. Now, there are some dispensationalists. That’s the view that dispensationalists always take. Some dispensationalists we call hyper-dispensationalists or maybe mid-Acts dispensationalists, they would say it’s not until the middle of the book of Acts, pretty much, when Paul is saved or when Paul is sent out as first missionary, that you really have the gospel of grace, you know, emerging. They would say that neither Jesus nor the other apostles taught the gospel of grace prior to Paul. So you’ve got in the early chapters of Acts, you’ve got Peter and James and John preaching the kingdom of God. But they would argue that when Paul was converted, he received the revelation of the mystery. Sounds like a term you used in forming your question. The revelation of the mystery was they believed that specifically Pauline people, outlook on things. Although Paul said that it was revealed to the apostles, plural, and prophets through the Holy Spirit in Ephesians chapter 3, but they would say that Paul’s preaching was essentially the gospel that is applicable for our generation, or for our dispensation that we’re living in until the rapture. But they would say that what Peter and James and those guys preached wasn’t. They didn’t have the revelation that Paul had. Now, this I don’t agree with at all. Basically, they’re saying there is a different gospel for us today in this dispensation, which is the gospel of grace. And that’s different from what Jesus and the early apostles taught. Paul taught it, but they would say it wasn’t taught until Paul. Now, Jesus and the other apostles clearly preached what we call the gospel of the kingdom of God. I mean, you can see that easily by reading the Gospels. Jesus preached the kingdom of God, and it’s called the gospel of the kingdom. Jesus said this gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end shall come. But the dispensationalists will say, well, yeah, that was true, and it will be true again someday, but that’s been postponed. This gospel of the kingdom has been temporarily set aside for this dispensation, to preach the gospel of grace. So they make a distinction between two gospels. Now, the word gospel means good news. That’s simply euangelion is the Greek word for good news. It’s the word gospel. Now, they say Jesus and the early apostles taught the good news of the kingdom of God, but Paul taught the good news of grace, which was different. However, Paul didn’t seem to realize that, nor did anyone else. That’s a view that didn’t show up until the 19th century. E.W. Bullinger would be an example, I think, of this teaching. Now, if you want to see why that isn’t true, you can simply look at what Paul himself said on this subject in Acts chapter 20 when he’s giving his goodbye address to the elders of the church of Ephesus who had gathered to see him off. And he’s reminding them of what he’s facing and what has happened before. And in verses 24 and 25, Acts 20, verse 24 and 25, here’s what Paul says. None of these things move me. He’s just recounted that prophets have told him he’s going to face tribulations when he gets to Jerusalem. He says, well, none of these things move me, nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy. and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. Okay, so this is actually the only place in the Bible that you find the expression the gospel of grace. You find grace and you find gospel. But the idea there’s a gospel of grace, well, that phrase, that term isn’t found anywhere in the Bible except here. Paul says that he received this ministry from Christ to testify of the gospel of of the grace of God. However, the next verse he says, And indeed now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Now he said, I’ve been preaching the gospel of the grace of God. As you recall, I’ve been preaching among you the kingdom of God. Now, Paul apparently didn’t get the memo from the dispensationalists that the gospel of the grace of God is different than the gospel of the kingdom of God. that there’s two gospels, not just one. Now, Paul didn’t know any other gospels than the one that he preached, and that’s why he said in Galatians chapter 1, verse 8, if anyone preaches any other gospel than the gospel I preached to you, let him be accursed, even if he’s an angel from heaven. And Paul also said in 2 Corinthians chapter 11, in the opening verses, he said he was afraid for the Corinthians that they might be vulnerable to to succumbing to another gospel and another Jesus than the one he’d preached. So, in other words, Paul knew of only one gospel and would only tolerate one gospel. So would Jesus. So would the other disciples. And there’s not the slightest hint anywhere in the Bible that any of them thought there were two gospels, one that the other apostles preached and one that Paul preached. And Paul himself obviously doesn’t think so because Paul, He says that he’s been going about preaching the kingdom of God. Well, that’s what Jesus preached. That’s what the other apostles preached. He also says he’s been preaching the gospel of the grace of God. There’s only one gospel. Sometimes it’s called the gospel of the kingdom. Sometimes it’s called the gospel of grace. Sometimes it’s called the gospel of God. Sometimes it’s called the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. On one occasion, it’s called the gospel of peace. That’s not a whole bunch of different gospels. It’s one good news that includes all these things. And so dispensationalists, I think, have really gotten off on the wrong foot when they think that every time you find a different label for the gospel, you’ve got a totally different gospel. This is not the way the Bible assumes things to be true. So this particular person you’re listening to is, I believe, what we call a hyper-dispensationalist, and a Bollingerite is another way of looking at it. So to my mind, that is heretical. I mean, that’s my opinion. I’m the world’s greatest expert on my own opinion, and so that’s my opinion. I think it’s heretical. All right, Susan. Hey, thank you for your call. I need to try to get some more calls in. We’re running low on time. Mike in Como, Texas. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi, Steve. Glad to get a hold of you again. You’re on KCLE out of Burleson, which is southwest of Fort Worth. But my question for you is about David and Bathsheba. It’s like, why did God allow David to stay married to Bathsheba and have Solomon? I mean… Usually when you counsel somebody in an adulterous relationship is break it off and separate. I was surprised God didn’t tell David after the first baby passed away to send Bathsheba home. I mean, God required David to support Bathsheba. But, you know, I’m surprised that he was allowed to stay married to her. Can you explain that?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I understand your question. You know… David, of course, sinned grievously by sleeping with Bathsheba when she was still married to another man. And then, perhaps even worse, to cover it up, he had the other man killed. But by the time David was confronted by Nathan the prophet and was brought to true repentance, she didn’t have another husband somewhere. Her husband was dead. Now, of course, David was guilty of having eliminated him. but he couldn’t bring him back. This is an instance where, usually when you repent, you have to consider whether there’s some kind of restitution to make. If you sin, you often injure somebody in some tangible way, and when you repent, you seek to repay and restore the damage that you’ve done to them. So, for example… If a man leaves his wife for a mistress, but his wife is still faithfully waiting for him to come home and her children, well, if he repents, he’s got to come back. He’s got to stop hurting her. He’s got to stop wronging her. You don’t just say, I’m sorry, and then keep doing your sin. Now, in this case, though, yeah, Uriah the Hittite, Bathsheba’s first husband, he was definitely wronged by what David did, and even more wronged. when David killed him. But once David repented, there was no Uriah being further wronged. Now, if Uriah had been alive at the time that David repented, it is my conviction that he would have had to send Bathsheba back to her husband. because that would be the way to make restitution for his sin against him. It wouldn’t undo everything, but it’s the most a man can do. Once he’s done that kind of a sin, if Uriah was alive, and David had simply been committing adultery with Bathsheba all this time, he should repent and send her back to her real husband. But that wasn’t an option in this case. He was dead. So she was actually a widow. And, you know, let alone the fact that David is the one who made her a widow, that was something he had to repent of, too. But the truth is that by the time he repented, she was, in fact, a widow. And, therefore, she was available to be married to David. And, of course, David should have been put to death for both the adultery and for the killing of Uriah under the law of Moses. But because David repented, God sent a prophet especially to say, okay, I’m not going to make you die, but you’re going to suffer. Your family is going to be messed up. The sword will not depart from your house all the days of your life. And David’s life was tumultuous, and the glow was gone from his whole kingdom. He had like two or three of his sons died because of their rebellion against him. And this was all part of his punishment. So even though he repented and he was not killed, his penalty should have been death. God gave him a reprieve from death, but not from punishment. And so the punishment was lightened, in a sense. But he still, you know, there was no sense sending Bathsheba away. To whom should she be sent? You know, I mean, once a woman’s husband is dead, she is free to be married to someone else. There’s not much question about that. And so that was the case. By the time that David was in the position of repentance, there was nowhere to send her. You know, there was she her husband was dead. It’s like what Jesus said to the woman taking adultery. Just go and sin no more. You can’t untangle it. You can’t unscramble the eggs. Sin is a very complicating thing. And sometimes by the time we come to our senses and decide, uh-oh, that’s sin. I need to stop doing that. I need to repent before God. We’ve scrambled the eggs so much you can’t unscramble them. On the other hand, sometimes there are things we can do to make it right. In the case of David and Bathsheba, there was nothing he could do to make it right. So just, okay, let’s go on and sin no more. And I believe that’s, I think that’s why God didn’t make that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, no, Steve, I would have said send her home, and then next time she takes a bath, have some young men up on the balcony and see and give them the address, you know. I mean, he would have had to support her, I would have said.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, he supported her, but he supported her as a wife up to this point, yeah. Okay, well, I appreciate your call. I don’t know if my answer is adequate in your mind, but that’s what I believe in response to what you asked. That’s my thought. David from Arkansas, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
How are you doing, Steve? It’s good talking to you. I’ve been trying to send you some info. I called in two or three weeks ago to tell you about a story about what happened to me. I met Jesus. I died and all that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, yes. By the way, people… Really, yeah, people have asked me if I’ve heard from you, and I have not. Well, I’m sorry. I’ve been trying, but the emails don’t work. Let me ask you if you use this email address, s-underscore-greg-7225-at-yahoo.com. Is that the one you’re using?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes, sir, and the Greg has two Gs at the end.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, it does. Yeah, well, I’m getting mail at that address every day.
SPEAKER 07 :
So I’m not sure. I’ll try it again.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, maybe there’s something. Maybe you only put 112. It’s 7225. Okay. I’m not sure. Yeah.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I’ll figure it out. I just want to make sure and let you know that I was trying. I love your show. Thank you. I know you’ve got other callers. I’ll talk to you soon.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, by the way, before you go, if you want to go on our Facebook page, you can text me from there. I’ll do that. Yeah. So just look up Steve Gregg The Narrow Path on Facebook and just send me a message, and I can be in touch with you that way.
SPEAKER 07 :
I’ll do it. Thank you, sir.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, David. Thanks for your call. God bless you.
SPEAKER 07 :
Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 02 :
Bye-bye. Okay, Matthew in Bayville, New Jersey. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, Steve. Thanks for taking the call. I’m going to try to get through this quick. So my question is about 1 Samuel. Chapter 15, verse 35. I’m paraphrasing here. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel. Back in Samuel chapter 9, verse 16, it says he tells Samuel, anoint him ruler over my people of Israel, and he will deliver them from the hand of the Philistines. So I’m going to smuggle in a second question here. It seems like that Saul did do exactly that, deliver them from the hand of the Philistines. And the idea of God having regrets, I was just kind of curious on your thoughts of that, because it was just something that I’m having a hard time wrapping my arms around.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Well, there’s two ways of looking at that. One is the way that the openness theologians would say it. Now, openness theology is not the theology that I myself hold to, but many of my friends do, and there are many, many evangelicals who think it is the biblical theology. They would say that when we say that God knows all things, we mean he knows all things that there are to be known. But they would say what people will do in the future is not there. It hasn’t happened yet. There’s no information content there. God knows everything, but the future choices people are going to make isn’t something. I mean, it doesn’t exist in any world. And therefore, there’s nothing there for God to know. And therefore, they would say, God knows everything that is. He knows the trajectory of things that are in process and can tell you where they’ll end up. He knows what he’s going to do to intervene. So God can predict future things if they are simply the future of a trajectory that’s already in place or something he’s going to intervene and do. And that’s where they would get the idea that he can prophesy things in the future because he’s going to make them happen and stuff like that. So this view holds that there are some things that simply don’t exist even in any place. And that is the choice I’m going to make tomorrow about whether I’m going to backslide or not. God doesn’t know that. Now, I think he does. But the openness theologians say, well, it’s not realistic to say God would know because that would determine the choices you’re going to make tomorrow. And so they would say he doesn’t know what we’re going to do, but that doesn’t mean he’s not omniscient. Just like if we say God cannot make two plus two equal five, that doesn’t mean he’s not omnipotent. There are some things that just don’t make sense at all. And we’re not claiming that those nonsensical things are true when we call God omniscient or omnipotent. That’s their view. My view is that lots of times, though God may in fact know the future, he is speaking to people on their level. And there’s many, many cases of this in the Bible where God will speak as if he doesn’t know something that we know he does. Adam, where are you, you know, in the garden? Where are you? You didn’t eat that tree, did you? Well, God certainly knew it had happened. And there’s other many things like that. We call this anthropomorphism. God speaks as if he is a man, although he is really God. Hey, I’m sorry we’re out of time. I wish I could go longer on this, but I hope that helps. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener supported. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Use it. It’s free. Donate if you want at thenarrowpath.com.
