The conversation continues with an examination of the ‘Church Age’ and the connection to the Kingdom of God. We explore common misconceptions tied to dispensationalism and pivot to investigating the spiritual and human reasons behind the often-discussed topic of anti-Semitism. Join us for thought-provoking insights and listener’s questions that spark lively biblical discussions.
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 for an hour this afternoon, as we are virtually every weekday afternoon. And we’re taking your calls. Our lines are full. I’m going to give out the phone number anyway, just in case you want to call in a little bit and find a line open, and lines do open frequently. The number to call if you have questions about the Bible you’d like to raise on the air or maybe a different view than the host is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Now, tomorrow I’ll be speaking in Greenville, Michigan. not too far from Grand Rapids. I’ll be speaking there actually tomorrow night and the following afternoon, Saturday afternoon. And if you’re interested in that, if you’re in Grand Rapids area, you may be interested in those meetings. Sunday, I’ll be speaking in Imlay City in Michigan. uh a couple times in the afternoon and in the evening and then there’s other things scheduled for the next 11 days uh here in the midwest i say here in the midwest because i flew in uh this morning and uh so if you’re interested in those things you go to our website the narrow path.com and you um You look up under the tab that says Announcements, and then you’re in. You’ll find out all the information you need. And you can join us if you’d like to. We’d love to have you do so. All right. We’re going to go to the phones right now and talk to Diane in Clinton, Massachusetts. Hi, Diane. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 11 :
Hi, Steve. Hi. Thank you for taking my call. My question is about… The places in the epistles where it talks about those who die in Christ are sleeping, and then where Paul says, you know, I’d rather go and be with Christ, you know, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. And so the word sleeping kind of is confusing me.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, well, 1 Corinthians 15 talks about death and resurrection, and it refers to those who sleep in Christ. And so does 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, which is also talking about the resurrection. And Paul talks about those who sleep in Christ will rise first, or the dead in Christ will rise first. But he also talks about those who sleep in Jesus in the same terms. So Paul does refer to dead Christians as sleeping dead. And by the way, Jesus talked that way too. He said, our friend Lazarus is asleep. I’m going to wake him up. His disciples said, well, if he’s asleep, he’ll get better. And Jesus said, well, he’s dead. I’m going to go raise him up. And the same thing was true of Jairus’ daughter. Jesus said, why are you all weeping? She’s not dead. She’s only sleeping. And then he raised her. And they laughed at him because they knew she actually had died. So many people have assumed that in speaking about death, as a state of sleeping, somehow this is contrary to the idea that when we die, our spirits go to be with the Lord in heaven and are conscious there with him, as I understand it anyway. But you see, when people sleep, they aren’t unconscious. I mean, some people maybe. Maybe they don’t remember their dreams, but lots of people remember their dreams, and they have those dreams while they’re asleep. Their mind was active. Their mind was maybe, you know, there might have been stories going on in their head in their sleep. Sleep is simply not a state of unconsciousness. Now, when you get put under anesthesia to have surgery, you go totally unconscious in many cases. But sleep isn’t that way. Sleep just means that you’re reclining and you’re not interacting with the world around you here where your body is. Now, of course, you may be interacting in your dreams with another world that people outside of your body don’t know about. But, you know, you’re not really unconscious. So when people say that sleep refers to an unconscious state and therefore death is an unconscious state, I have to disagree with their premise and therefore with their conclusion also. Now, I believe that the reason that death is referred to as sleep is, as far as I know, it’s only used as that kind of a metaphor in passages that are talking about being raised from the dead. Lazarus was asleep. Jesus was going to wake him. Jairus’ daughter was sleeping. He raised her. In 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul talks about Christians who are asleep. They’re going to be raised. In other words, sleep is a metaphor that doesn’t have anything to do with the state of mind of the person or being unconscious. It has to do with the fact that they’re going to get up again. Usually when people die without any knowledge from the Bible, we’d assume that’s the end of it. They’re never getting up again. They’re going to decay in the grave. They’re gone. But the Bible teaches that even though they do decay, God can reconstitute them and resurrect them and will do so. So it’s really more like sleep. It’s more like going to sleep because you’re going to wake up again. And I think that that’s the point. If I call you and say, you know, how’s your husband doing? You say, well, he’s dead. Well, I think differently about it than if you say, well, he’s sleeping. You know, oh, he’s sleeping? Okay, good. That’s fine. He’ll get up. And that’s the way we’re supposed to be thinking about death, is that when a Christian dies, it’s more like they’re taking a nap. They’re going to get up again. And that’s why the word sleep is used. It’s not speaking of their state of mind during that time. Who can say what state of mind somebody’s in when they’re sleeping? Like I say, some people may never remember their dreams and might literally be unconscious in their sleep. But I think most people are not. It certainly would not be assumed that because somebody’s asleep, they’re unconscious. So it shouldn’t be assumed that the use of sleep as a metaphor for death would also be speaking of an unconscious state. I think not. All right, let’s talk to Rayma from Detroit, Michigan. Rayma, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 10 :
Thank you. My question today is Revelation 15 and 16. About the seven angels pouring out the seven bowls of wrath after the trumpet.
SPEAKER 02 :
By the way, your voice is kind of fading in and out. Are you in a bad spot or something? It’s real muffled right now, but it was clear for like a second there, and then it went muffled again.
SPEAKER 10 :
Can you hear me better now?
SPEAKER 02 :
Maybe. I can hear you. Go ahead. You’re talking about Revelation 15? And 16.
SPEAKER 10 :
About the seven angels pouring out the seven bowls of wrath after the trumpet. Uh-huh. Will you help me with the timeline, please, between that time and the time that all the Christians who are in heaven descend back to earth with Jesus? What’s happening in between that timeline, the mark of the beast, the Armageddon? I’m totally confused. After the seven trump, the seven angels pours out the seven bowls of wrath, from that time to the time we all descend back to earth, What happens? Is it the thousand-year millennium, seven years when Satan is loose? What happens?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I think that if you want to understand the book of Revelation, it might be helpful to listen to my lecture on the four views of Revelation because the view I hold of Revelation is no doubt different than the one you’ve heard. And there’s several others besides. There are very, very different views of Revelation. And the one you seem to be thinking of is the one that most people have heard, which is that Revelation is talking about the end times and the second coming of Christ and that kind of thing. There are three other views of Revelation, and they don’t have that assumption. And one of them is that it’s talking about things that were fulfilled in the past. And it’s very symbolic of those things, but it was a very catastrophic time, in particular when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and that the language… in Revelation is the kind of language you find in Daniel and in Ezekiel and in Zechariah and in some of the prophetic passages, which are, you know, talking in some cases, they’re talking about the fall of Babylon or the fall of Edom or the fall of, you know, some other nation. But they use language like, you know, the sun goes dark, the stars fall from the sky and things like that. That’s just… poetic language that is used in these prophecies a lot. But many people believe, and I think there’s merit in it. I actually changed my mind from the earlier view when I studied it out more some years ago. I don’t believe that Revelation is talking about the future. And I don’t think the rapture of the Christians is the subject matter. I don’t think the second coming is the primary subject either. Now, I’m not a complete preterist. A preterist is someone who thinks all of it was fulfilled in 70 A.D., I don’t hold that view. I’m not a full preterist. But I do believe that most of it. is in fact about that event. And I do think there are glimpses of the second coming, but I don’t think there’s anything like a timeline, like a chronology. I’ll have to say, I don’t see how anyone can take Revelation as if it’s a literal chronology, since you have things like all the mountains and the islands disappear in chapter 6, and then some more of them disappear later on, or whatever. You know, I mean, it’s like it’s apocalyptic literature. But what it’s about and what the order of events is, you know, if you talk to ten people, I think you get ten different ideas for the chronology. And I don’t think we need to know the chronology because I don’t think it’s intending to lay out a chronological picture of the future for us, as some people think it is. If you think it is and you need someone to give you a chronology, you probably should look to some – maybe some dispensational authors or or you know people on youtube or something who are from that viewpoint uh but my own viewpoint is that revelation is not actually about our future i think it was i think it was mostly fulfilled in a different event in the past okay uh larry from narco california welcome to the narrow path uh thanks for joining thanks steve um
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, this is coming off of the end of the comment that I made about the 70th week of Daniel at the Zoom meeting. And I said something about Matthew 24 being about a general tribulation that would be happening all through what you called the church age. And my question to you is, don’t you think the concept of the church age is came about with dispensationalism, and that there’s a better way of understanding that with what you were discussing at the theology pizza class about the kingdom of God.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I don’t see that the church age is a bad term. We’re talking about the age when the church has dominated history. we don’t have to call it the church age, not only dispensationalists, but ancient writers referred to the old dispensation and the new dispensation. And what I refer to as the church age, they referred to as the new dispensation. Now, of course, dispensationalists talk about seven dispensations, and they speak very differently about that kind of thing. But the recognition that there was an old covenant era and there’s a new covenant era, I think has always been understood in Christian theology, no matter what theological position somebody’s taking. So to me, if I use the term church age, I don’t know if I first heard that term from dispensationalists or not. Maybe I did, but I’ve never objected to it because it’s the New Testament era, the church of Jesus Christ being built during the past 2,000 years and spreading. So as far as the kingdom of God is concerned, yes, I equate the true church with the kingdom of God. So this is the kingdom age. So I don’t see this as contradicting. Now, the dispensationalists would say the church age is not the kingdom age. They would say the church age is different, a different dispensation. And the millennium is the kingdom age. Well, when I teach the kingdom, I make it pretty clear that’s not what I think. I believe that Jesus established the kingdom, and the kingdom is comprised of his followers, and so is the church, because those are just different ways of looking at the same thing. Whether we refer to the church as a body, the body of Christ, or as a temple of the Holy Spirit made of living stones, or as the family of God made up of, you know, brothers and sisters. You know, I mean, these are different images, the Bible uses. It’s all the same thing, in my opinion, as God’s kingdom made up of… Christ the king and we his subjects. So for me it’s just a matter of semantics. It may be that since dispensationalists use the term church age to speak of something different than the kingdom age that maybe I should just start talking about the new covenant age or something like that instead.
SPEAKER 08 :
My thought is we have the old covenant and we have the new covenant and we have Jeremiah talking about the new covenant being for the house of Israel and the house of Judah, that would help the 90-year-old lady that wrote the book that seemed to think that those events were going to happen with Christ’s return, when I actually believe those events happened when Jesus came the first time, and that’s why we preach the gospel to Jews and Gentiles. So I don’t know if you agree with me on that, but I think there’s a lot of people… Thinking that that’s going to be sometime in the way future. And I go, oh no, Hosea and some of those other passages, Ezekiel 37, the coming together of the two sticks. To me, that’s what the new covenant is all about in us taking the gospel out to the world, to the nations. So maybe that’ll help the 90-year-old lady that’s writing the book.
SPEAKER 02 :
Maybe so. Well, I agree with that understanding of it. I believe that the new covenant was made with the remnant of Israel in the upper room at the Last Supper. And so even Paul, who was not there but was part of the church, what we call the church usually… He said that he was a minister of the New Covenant. So the New Covenant isn’t something that remains to be made in the future. I think dispensationalists have some confusion about that. Many dispensationalists have different views of the New Covenant. One group of dispensationalists believe that there’s two New Covenants, one for the church and one for Israel. Another group thinks that there’s one for Israel later on, and they have different ideas, and these can be all dispensations. But their problem is, when God said in Jeremiah, I’ll make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, they think this means that the nation of Israel as a whole is going to somehow enter into a covenant with him. But Jesus made it very clear. He made the new covenant, and his disciples, he entered into it at a covenant feast at the Last Supper. And he made that covenant with the true Israel, with the remnant, the faithful remnant of Israel, who happened to be his disciples. And so are we. So, I mean, that’s pretty clear in the New Testament, I think. Obviously, dispensationalists, they don’t rely on the New Testament as much as they rely on the Old Testament. And that gives them some problems in their theology, in my opinion.
SPEAKER 08 :
In our next pizza theology class, are we going to continue on the kingdom of God, or it might be another subject?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I’ll make some kind of a decision and announce that. I mean, we could certainly take a different theological topic, but I’d be glad to talk about the kingdom more. Okay. Great. All right. Thank you. All right, Larry. Thanks for your call. Good talking to you. All right. Let’s talk to Susan in Havana, Florida. Hi, Susan. Welcome.
SPEAKER 12 :
Hi, Steve. I have two questions if you have time. The first one is something I wrote in a journal a while back, and I wrote down the reference. I thought it was Scripture straight out of the Bible, and I wrote the reference as Psalm 22.3. And what I wrote was, When we praise him, he inhabits us. He comes to meet us in our praise of him. And I’m just wondering if you think this is a good interpretation of that verse, because when I went to Psalm 22.3 and read it, I thought, oh, that’s the wrong, that’s not the right reference.
SPEAKER 02 :
Do you want me to read it? No, I know it is the right verse. Psalm 22.3 says that you are wholly enthroned on the praises of Israel. So, but you’re thinking of another verse, too, that, oh, you who inhabits the praises of Israel. That’s also in there. I’m not sure if that was a different translation of that same verse or not. I always thought it was Psalm 22 also. Yeah, well, the truth is that, you know, God does inhabit us. And when we gather collectively, or two or more gathered, Christ is there in our midst. And it actually says later in Psalm 22 that in the midst of the congregation, and this is Jesus apparently speaking, it says in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praises or something very much like that. I’m not looking at it right now. But I will because I know that’s in that psalm. Let’s see if I can find it really quickly here. Yeah, Psalm 22, 22. It says, I will declare your name to my brethren in the midst of the assembly. I will praise you. So Christ is in the midst of the assembly praising the Father. I think through our lips. I think when we are praising God, we are his body. We’re his hands and feet and mouth and ears and things like that. So when we are speaking praises to God in the assembly… That’s him. He’s the collective body and himself. So I think that that’s correct. Now, I will say that the expression that God inhabits the praises of Israel… I always wondered if that means that that is simply that his name is in their praises. I don’t know if he’s saying he in some other sense inhabits. I know from my youth, I always assumed that the praises of Israel or the praises of God by the church even, that that, as it were, attracts his presence or something like that. And that could be what it is saying. But I’ve also wondered, is it just saying, you know, Israel worships Yahweh, other nations don’t. And so God’s name, God is the one who inhabits their verbal praises, I think. Not that he actually is more there at that time than at other times, but that his name… shows up there in their praises rather than the names of Baal or some other gods. But what was it that you were actually saying in your journal about your understanding of it?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, what I wrote down, and I got this from a minister or a Bible teacher or someone, I don’t know who, but what I wrote is, when we praise him, he inhabits us. He comes to meet us in our praise of him. So I’m I was taking that personally, like when I praise him, he inhabits me. But does it mean in the context of a church assembly or just an individual?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I think that, yeah, I think he is talking about the congregation gathered. But it is true. I mean, we know that God inhabits us, you know, because the Bible teaches that he dwells in us by his spirit. And I think it’s also true to say that we draw near to him in our praises because a psalm like, say, Psalm 100 says, enter into his gates with thanksgiving and into his courts with praise. It seems like you’re drawing near to God in that. And that’s with praise and thanksgiving and such. So I don’t really see any problem with what you’re suggesting. Oh, there is another, yeah. When it says, you are holy, you who inhabit the praise of Israel, that’s the King James. The New King James says you’re enthroned in the praises of Israel. So, yeah, I was looking at two different translations there. All right.
SPEAKER 12 :
And was there another question you had? Yeah. In Luke 3.14… Who are the soldiers that John is talking to that ask him what should they do? Would that be the Roman soldiers? And are they supposed to be listening to John and asking him questions?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I think they are Roman soldiers. There were also temple soldiers, temple guards. Okay. And, for example, when… When the tomb of Jesus was guarded, I suspect that the soldiers or the guards who guarded the tomb were probably the temple guards. Because when the high priest went to Pilate, who could have given him Roman guards, and said, we need someone to guard the tomb, Pilate said, you have… You have guards. Use them, you know. So there were Jewish temple guards, and then there were Roman guards. Now, Luke doesn’t tell us that these were temple guards, and Jesus was not at that moment, or I mean John the Baptist, was not at that moment at the temple. So there’s no reason why we would assume them to be temple guards. They were Roman guards, Roman soldiers all over the place in Israel. They were an occupied country. In fact, there might have been Roman guards there because they were on assignment to check out what John was doing because John was gathering multitudes. And the Romans were very skittish about multitudes of Jews getting together because typically when there was some kind of a charismatic leader attracting the attention of a lot of the Jews, he typically was about ready to lead a revolt against Rome. Now, John wasn’t, and Jesus wasn’t, but I imagine that just to make sure, when these men, Jesus and John the Baptist, when they began to draw crowds, probably the Romans assigned some soldiers to keep track of things, make sure it wasn’t getting too lively, you know. And so my guess is that they were Roman soldiers. Very possibly they were assigned there just to surveil. But they also were impressed with John, and they asked him, you know, well, what are we supposed to do then? I’m going to guess they were Romans. It doesn’t say.
SPEAKER 12 :
Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you for your answers.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, Susan. Great to talk to you. God bless you. You too. You too. Bye-bye. Thanks for joining us. Yeah. All right, you’re listening to The Narrow Path. Already the first half hour is gone. We have another half hour coming up, so don’t go away. At this point, we do like to let our audience know, just in case you don’t, that we are listener supported. There have been no commercials. There’s not going to be a commercial now, and there are no commercials before the end of the program. We have no sponsors. We have nothing for sale. But because we don’t, we depend on donors who want to pay the radio bills. That’s all it really comes down to. We actually don’t have any expenses other than radio bills. The narrow path has no offices, no overhead. No salaries. Nobody is paid. No perks. Nothing. We pay the money that gets sent in to buy radio time, and that’s the only thing in our budget. I mean, maybe a few pennies here or there for office supplies or something. I don’t know. But, yeah, we get a lot of money in, and it all goes to buy airtime. And as long as we pay it, we get to stay on the air. And if you’d like to help us meet those needs, you may. Our address is The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. That’s The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can donate from the website where everything is free. But there’s a donate link there at thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. We have another half hour, so don’t go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
The book of Hebrews tells us do not forget to do good and to share with others. So let’s all do good and share The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg with family and friends. When the show is over today, tell one and all to go to thenarrowpath.com where they can study, learn, and enjoy with free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. And be sure to tell them to tune into the show right here on the radio. Share listener-supported The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Share and do good.
SPEAKER 1 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast.
SPEAKER 02 :
My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour, taking your calls if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith. Or if you see things differently from the host and want to balance comment, we welcome you to join us today. We have another half hour before we’re out of time, and we have a couple of lines open now, which we didn’t earlier. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737 if you’d like to be on the program today. Our next caller is Jim from Azusa, California. Hi, Jim. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Yes, thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
I believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. Do you?
SPEAKER 02 :
I actually don’t, no. I used to. I used to and I taught it, but my studies led me to think otherwise.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I was an English major in college. I understand the English language well. And I got my degree, four years. But I think 1 Thessalonians 4 makes it clear to me that we’re not going to see wrath. Also in chapter 5, it says we’re not appointed unto wrath. And also in Revelation, it talks about, I think about in chapter 4, that John was transfigured or something, he was… Translated. Yeah, translated into heaven… And I think that’s when the church goes up into heaven, not the same time he did. No, I’m a firm believer in the pre-credulation rapture of the church, and I think Calvary chapels, they agree with that. So I think I better stick with that unless somebody can point out something different to me. All right.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, yeah, I mean, I don’t quite agree with the reasoning that if some church teaches that, that you would necessarily stick with it for that reason. There’s lots of different churches that teach different things. And if you happen to be in those churches, you’d probably have the same inclination to stick with whatever your church is teaching. I myself am from Calvary Chapel, if you go back far enough. I was actually part of the Jesus Revolution. I went to Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, from 1970 to 1974. I sat under Chuck Smith, Lonnie Frisbee. I began teaching, not at the church, but I began teaching at home Bible studies and things in those days. And I sat under Chuck every time he was teaching, frankly, for several years. So I know very much what he taught. I know how he taught it. And I know because I used to imitate him. I used to teach everything he taught. using the same scriptures, including the ones you mentioned. Let me just share with you that having said I used to be there, I’m not trying to say anything bad about Calvary Chapel. I think there’s good things about Calvary Chapel, very many good things. But they are pretty solidly locked into what’s called dispensational. eschatology, which is the preacher of rapture and other things that they teach about that. It’s all called dispensationalism. Paul did say in the fifth chapter of 1 Thessalonians, God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, the distinction he makes there is not between wrath and rapture, between wrath and And salvation. Now, the wrath of God can refer to any time God punishes. And there will certainly be wrath, I suppose, at the last judgment when people are thrown into the lake of fire. That’s wrath. And I think that’s what Paul’s talking about. God has not appointed us to wrath. That’s not our destiny to be in the lake of fire. but our destiny is to be saved. He points to salvation. There’s really no reason in the world, certainly Paul doesn’t give us any reason, to assume that when Paul uses the word wrath, he’s talking about a particular time of wrath. There may be seasons of wrath that are uniquely so, but Paul doesn’t speak of any such season of wrath. In fact, he certainly doesn’t ever say that the tribulation period is the time of God’s wrath, But he does use the word tribulation in that same epistle. In 1 Thessalonians chapter 3, it says that, in verse 4, 1 Thessalonians 3, 4, Paul says, In fact, we told you before, when we were with you, that we would suffer tribulation, just as it happened, and you know. So, if we’re equating wrath with tribulation… Well, that’s a strange thing to do, since Paul said God has not appointed us to wrath, but he has appointed us to tribulation. Jesus also said in John 16, 33, These things I’ve spoken unto you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. He didn’t say be of good cheer, I’ll rapture you. Before, there’s very bad tribulation. He said, I have overcome the world. That’s your comfort. Not that there’s going to be a rapture to get you out of tribulation. Now, I believe in the rapture, by the way. I just don’t believe in the pre-tribulational rapture. The reason I believe in the rapture is because Paul speaks of it in 1 Thessalonians 4, verses 16 to 17, and also in 1 Corinthians 15, somewhere around verse 51 or so. He talks about the living will be caught up. to meet the Lord in the air, and right after, the dead are cut up to meet the Lord in the air when Jesus comes. And so, yeah, I believe in a rapture, but I don’t believe it happens any time other than when Jesus comes. And what Paul said about God is not appointing us to wrath, yeah, there’s not a reason in the world to think that Paul’s talking about the tribulation there. At least he doesn’t say so anywhere. Actually, the truth is that no New Testament writer refers to the tribulation as wrath, except maybe Revelation where the bowls of wrath are associated with the tribulation. But certainly the wrath of God is mentioned many times in the Old Testament and never once there about a future tribulation period, but usually it’s the wrath of God against Israel. The Philistines are against the Moabites or against the Assyrians or Egypt. I mean, and that had to do, of course, with him sending armies against them and destroying them, conquering them because of his wrath. So wrath, it’s entirely artificial to assume that a reference to wrath. would somehow refer to a particular period of tribulation unless such is identified for us. Now, you mentioned Revelation 4.1 when John was caught up into heaven. You say that’s the rapture of the church. Well, I was taught that, too. I have to say, though, I have studied the book of Revelation. I also am fluent in English, so I can read those words in English, too. But the thing is that John never indicates that he represents the church. And he mentions himself lots of times in the book of Revelation. He starts out, he’s on the island of Patmos. Later, he’s in heaven. Later he’s on earth in some wilderness where there’s this harlot riding on a beast. He moves around a bit. But there’s no indicator that where John is, that’s where the church is. In other words, the church is not on Patmos when John’s on Patmos. And the church is not in the wilderness looking at the harlot on the beast when he goes there. And there’s certainly no suggestion that when he goes up into heaven and sees visions, that we go up there too at that time. But I understand because many people who take the future’s view of Revelation, they believe… that after that point, after Revelation 4-1, that you don’t find the church on earth anymore. And what you find is the beginning of the tribulation. And so a pre-tribulation rapture would find it convenient if John did represent the church because he’s caught up into heaven to see these visions. right at the time that they would like the rapture to be. But it simply is not exegetical. To exegete the Bible, you have to look at what it says and say, does the language, English or Greek, does the context, is there anything in it that suggests that it means what I’m saying? And if the answer is no, then we might ask, well, why do I think it means that? And usually, once we think about it, we realize the reason we think that is because someone told us that. Now, I mean, imagine if you were raised Roman Catholic. Maybe you were, I don’t know. But if you were raised Roman Catholic and remain Roman Catholic, you’d believe a lot of things the Bible doesn’t say because the Catholic Church told you so. And if you were, you know, raised, you know, Lutheran, you’d believe things that Luther said and so forth. But If you go to Calvary Chapel, you’re going to hear at least the things that Chuck Smith said. And by the way, Chuck Smith is a great hero of mine. I miss him. I loved him. I admired him to the day of his death. But I didn’t, I never, well, when I was a teenager, I kind of thought he could never be wrong. But as I got older and studied the Bible, I thought, well, you know, anyone can be wrong, including Chuck. And I think he was wrong about some things. That doesn’t make, that’s not saying anything bad about him. It’s just saying he can make a mistake like everyone else can. All right. Jim? Oh, well, maybe Jim’s not there anymore. All right, let’s talk to who’s up next. It’s going to be Mark from Hartford, Connecticut, West Hartford, Connecticut, that is. Mark, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
You’re welcome. I called back, and I’m sorry to be hogging the lines up, so next time I call, it won’t be for a few weeks, so other people can call in. Anyways, I have someone who has… said that animals can love, and I believe that love is only between humans and God. So in 1 John, it says that God is love. So what is the correct biblical definition of love, and how are we to grasp and understand that God is love?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, well, first of all, love means different things in different contexts. it certainly means something different in 1 John 4, 8, where it says God is love than it means if I say I love chocolate ice cream. That’s a very different kind of a thing. If I say Um, I love my new car. By the way, I don’t have a new car, but I’m just thinking of something people say. I love my new car. Uh, well, okay, but that’s not the same thing, I hope, as when you say I love my kids. And when I say I love my kids, it’s not the same thing as when I say I love my wife. Um, Or I love my friends. Or I love God. All these things speak of different kinds of love. And most of those things that I described, at least the first things I described, really don’t rise above the level of simply being affection or feelings. of liking them a lot. I like the ice cream. I like my car. I like my friends. Maybe I love them. Maybe I’d die for them. Jesus said, greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. So that’s one thing. But say the love I have for my wife, since we’re a married couple, it has different dimensions that are not included in my love for my children. And my love for God, too, is of a different sort. So, I mean, to say God is love, What John is saying is, well, John, of course, wrote that, and he also wrote the Gospel of John. And it’s in the Gospel of John that Jesus says, greater love has no one than this, that he laid down his life for his friends. And, you know, so laying down your life, basically laying down your prerogatives. making sacrifices for somebody because they are as valuable to you as you are to yourself. Their needs are as important to you as yours are to you. That’s what loving others as you love yourself means. And God is like that. In fact, he loves us greater than he loved himself in a sense. Because he rescued us at the expense of Jesus’ life. And, you know, I mean, instead of us having to die, he was willing to take on human flesh and die. And that’s a love that seems to exceed love for yourself, loving others. So, I mean, when it says God is love, I think what John is saying is we certainly are not thinking rightly about God. if we somehow make love not the major characteristic that he is known for. And in that context, he’s saying, Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God. And he that knows God loves, and whoever doesn’t love doesn’t know God, and so forth. For God is love. So he’s saying that our relationship with God is the same as our relationship with love. If we’re filled with God, we’re filled with love. If we’re not filled with love, we’re not filled with God. I mean, those are basically the things he’s saying about that. But the word love can mean many things. Now, do animals love? That was your original question. I do think animals have affection. Now, affection isn’t quite the same thing as the love of God. It’s not agape. But there’s even different Greek words for love. There’s the word philea, which means a brotherly love. Agape has more to do with the kind of love that God has for us and we should have for each other and for him. There’s a variety of kinds of love even in the Greek language and even our English usage when we use the same English word. It doesn’t always mean the same thing. So I wouldn’t be averse to To say that animals have love of a sort, I don’t think they have the love of God. I don’t think they have the love that’s a fruit of the Spirit. But just as we are fond of our children, just kind of it’s a natural fondness, it does appear that some of the higher animals are quite fond of their children. So, I mean, and that wouldn’t be in any sense compromising, you know, the uniqueness of God in saying that God is love. We’re talking about a different thing when we talk about an animal’s affection for its offspring than when we’re talking about God’s love. That’s not the same concept. It’s similar, but not the same. All right. Let’s talk to Nelson in San Diego, California. Hi, Nelson. Good to hear from you. Hey, Steve.
SPEAKER 06 :
Thanks for taking my call. And I have listened to your teachings on the Jews and Israel and so forth. I’m in agreement about your position on the difference between the Jewish people and the true Israel people. But here’s kind of my dilemma about that. Why do you think there’s been such hatred for the Jewish people even today? Do you think it’s a spiritual issue as much as a natural thing? What’s your take on that?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I think there’s two dimensions of that. One is it’s human hatred. I mean, I think there’s a great deal of jealousy there. that some people have of the Jews. The Jews have been very successful. I mean, you know, in the entertainment field, in the finance field. in the academic world, the scientific field. You know, frankly, Jews have just kind of dominated there. I mean, not that most of the people in it are Jews, although that could even be true, because there’s an awful lot of Jews in Hollywood and those places. And, you know, Nobel Prizes, you know, a disproportionately large number of them have been Jewish people. And, you know, some very brilliant people like Einstein and so forth. But, I mean, there’s all kinds of brilliance and success that has disproportionately been found among Jewish people. I mean, does this mean they’re superior in some ways? I don’t know. I mean, do they have superior intellect? I don’t know that they do as a whole race, but percentage-wise, proportionally, They certainly outshine Gentiles in many, many fields. And I think that non-Jews can be jealous of that, especially if the Jews are particularly financially doing well and others are not. There’s always a lot of times people want to blame somebody for succeeding when they’re not. I mean, think how many people, I mean, think of how the Democrats recently, and I don’t want to get political, but how when Trump was running, they said, oh, Do you support Trump? You’re supporting the oligarchy, meaning the rich people who support Trump. And then we now have, you know, this guy running for mayor in New York City, and the only people supporting him are the oligarchs, and they’re for him. You know, I mean, it’s like it doesn’t matter if the oligarchs support Trump or support someone else of a different viewpoint. The oligarchs are always the bad guys. Why? Because they’re successful. They’re wealthy. A lot of them are Jewish. Not all of them, certainly, but The point is that I think people do get jealous of success in other people, and sometimes they want to blame them for cheating. I mean, certainly there’s a whole bunch of people in the United States who are very irrational, but they say, well, you know, it’s because of the success of these billionaires that I’m not wealthy. And that’s probably because of the success of billionaires that you have a job. But in any case, you know, the Jews have been very successful, very famous in many ways. And, of course, that’s been in America. In much of Europe, it was that way, too. But they were persecuted greatly there. The other thing I think you’re asking is, is there a spiritual aspect to it? Is maybe the devil against them? Is maybe the devil inspiring hatred toward them? Well, I wouldn’t be surprised. The devil, you know, the devil’s a hater. The devil inspires, I think, virtually all hatred toward anyone. And if it seems like maybe the Jews are hated more than others, I’m not 100% sure that they are the top-ranking hated ones. I mean, Christians… I think Christians have been persecuted throughout the world and throughout history as much as the Jews have, if not more. I don’t know the percentages, but it certainly is comparable. And there’s other racial minorities that have been horribly persecuted in countries where they live. I think of the Uyghurs in China, for example. I think of the Kurds in Iraq and so forth. I mean, lots of people are special targets of hatred. They’re minorities, and for some reason the majority wants to wipe them out. And, you know, all of that is satanic. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Satan specially hates the Jews because they are God’s chosen people, which is what I’ve often heard. I don’t think the reasoning follows. I don’t know that all these people who are hated as minorities… are all God’s chosen people. I think people are often hated because they’re, I don’t know, they’re different. And that’s another thing. The Jewish people, more than some, have kept to themselves with their own customs and their own religion, more than some have. Not so much in modern times, certainly not in America as much, but there’s still, throughout history, what has bonded the Jews together as an identity has been their traditions and circumcision and, you know, Sabbath and, you know, all that stuff. Passover. I mean, this is the kind of stuff that bonds them as a people together. And all of that is related to the attitude that the Jews had. They had it in Jesus’ day. They had it in Old Testament times. And they have often had it today. Not all Jews, but many Jews have felt that they are specifically the chosen people. And being such, they feel like everybody else is inferior. And there’s many things in the Talmud that express the superiority of Jews over the Gentiles. And so forth. So, I mean, when people begin to think they’re better than you and kind of keep themselves away from you, it may raise suspicions. It may raise resentment. So, I mean, a lot of those things can cause, can be behind the reactions some people have had. Anti-Semitism is not justifiable at all. It’s satanic, to be sure. But I’m not sure that the Jews being hated is uniquely satanic in the sense that, I mean, there are other people who are hated, too. And I think that’s also satanic. Now, what if someone said, well, I think the devil hates the Jews more than anyone else. I’d say, no, I think he hates Christians more than anyone else, but maybe the Jews come in second. And if so, it may well be for the same reason as if you got mugged three times on the street and the muggers in every case were of the same race, you might begin to dislike certain races, sometimes when you feel you’ve been injured. By someone of a race, you begin to blame the whole race. Not rightly, but, I mean, you just do. And Satan was badly black-eyed by Jesus, who was a Jew. And, you know, the righteous throughout the Old Testament period were Jews. Now, not all the Jews were righteous, but those who were righteous… were often the Jews, the prophets, and so forth. And I think that Satan has suffered from them. I don’t know if he’s the forgiving type. He might just hate them for that reason. But if he hates them, we could not conclude on that basis that they still have some special status with God. They certainly did, and especially through bringing Jesus into the world, they did the devil great harm. and he may just be nasty enough to want to take it out on them for the rest of history, for all I know.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, I think a lot of the media is owned or controlled by the Jewish people as well, so maybe that’s why they get maybe more press than others, but it just seems kind of unique that every time you turn around, there’s anti-Semitism and hatreds for the Jews and all that, but
SPEAKER 02 :
I don’t understand it. I don’t understand anti-Semitism. I don’t understand hating anybody, and certainly not anybody on the basis of what race they are. I mean, if somebody does horrible things to you, I can see that you’d have to fight temptations to hate them. But if somebody’s never done anything to you, but they’re just of a race that you don’t like, then you’re satanic, you know, if you hate people for no good reason. He that hates his brothers is of the devil, the Bible says.
SPEAKER 06 :
Steve, have a great time in Emily City. Okay. God bless you, man. Good to talk to you. All right. Yeah, bye.
SPEAKER 02 :
Bye. I’ll say hi to your friends there. Okay. Lietta from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Welcome to the Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hello.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hello.
SPEAKER 09 :
Can you hear me okay?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, but we only have a couple minutes, so you’re going to have to talk.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay. I’ll ask my question another time. I wanted to comment on the… reference to Jews and that, but because in Christ, we’re neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free. All those nationalities are gone away with in Christ. So what has come upon the Jews, Jesus said he came to his own and they received him not, but as many as received him, he let them come in and be the sons of God. So the Jews, now since they rejected Jesus, They have to come and believe on Jesus like everyone else.
SPEAKER 02 :
I agree with you that they do. I mean, that’s just the point. The Jews are not really different than anyone else. They’re not worse. And they’re not better. They’re just people. They’re human beings who are sinners like the rest of us and who need salvation like the rest of us. Now, you mentioned the Jews rejected Jesus. That is the way we commonly sometimes hear it said. The truth is that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Jews in Israel in the first century accepted Jesus. The church was all made up of Jews initially. The Jerusalem church was a Jewish body, growing thousands at a time. And so we have to say the Jews didn’t all reject Jesus, like the Gentiles. Most of them reject Jesus. Most Gentiles reject Jesus. Most of the Jews do, too. But there’s a significant number of both Jews and Gentiles who have received Christ. So it’s a little, maybe it’s too simplistic to say, well, the Jews rejected Jesus. Well, we could say so of the Gentiles then. The Gentiles have rejected Jesus too. But there are Jews and Gentiles who do not reject Jesus. And so we don’t want to throw everyone into the same, you know, the same pot. Thanks for joining us. Let’s talk again tomorrow. God bless.
