In this thought-provoking episode, we explore the growing intersection of evangelical Christianity and political activism, spurred by influential figures such as James Dobson. We ponder the responsibilities of Christians in democratic societies and the delicate balance between political engagement and spiritual commitments. Additionally, we foster a deeper understanding of doctrinal differences, particularly regarding the Trinity and creation, as we emphasize the paramount importance of focusing on righteousness and justice in both spiritual and civic arenas.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Good afternoon. Taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we’d be glad to hear from you about that. If you disagree with the host on something, we’d love to hear from you about that. And right now our lines are full, so you’re not going to get through if you call right now, but there are going to be plenty of opportunities in the next hour. Each one who’s online now is going to be gone sometime, and their line’s going to open up, so randomly call a few minutes from now, and you may find the line is open. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Just a few announcements. Tonight I’m going to be speaking in a little church in, I don’t know if it’s a little, it might be a big church, in Indianapolis. So any listeners in Indianapolis area, you may be interested, but it’s going to start about a half hour when we’re When the broadcast today goes off the air, it’s like a half hour later we’re doing it. So if you are interested, you get a strike while the fire is hot. That’s short notice. Go to our website, TheNarrowPath.com, and there’s a tab that says Announcements. Scroll down to today’s date, August 22nd, and you’ll find the time, the place, everything you need to know to join us tonight. If you’re in Illinois, I’m going to be speaking in two venues in Illinois on the weekend. I’m going to be in Rochelle, I think on Saturday and Sunday. I’m going to be speaking in Rochelle, Illinois. And then I believe Monday I’m speaking at Mount Carroll in Mount Carroll, Illinois. So anyone who’s anywhere near there. Of course, those venues are west of Chicago, but I think they’re some distance west, so it’s not exactly in the Chicago area. Anyway, that’s what I’m doing before I go home. I’ve been away from home for over a week now, and I’m looking forward to getting done. But I’m also greatly enjoying meeting everybody. I’ve been all over Michigan until last night in Indiana. All right, enough of that. Enough about me. Let’s talk about you. Peter from Bedford, U.K. Good to hear from you again, Peter. I’m putting you in front. Hi, Steve.
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, thank you, Steve. Appreciate it. So, Steve, Luke chapter 18, I heard a message on Sunday, and it was being preached, and as per usual, it was very topical about how Christians, encouraging Christians to pray, but having listened to you for a while… I have a different view on it, and I just wanted to know what your view was as well. So where Jesus in verse 6 talks about, or verse 7, that shall God not avenge his own elect, and then he says in verse 8 that nevertheless when the Son of Man comes, will you really find faith on earth? Is he referring to… AD 70, where he’s sort of encouraging his disciples that, look, obviously the injustices that happened with the prophets, it says in Luke 11, 51, talking about how this generation, that the blood from Abel to Zechariah will be required of this generation. But is he actually specifically talking about how God will avenge his saints or could this be usually used as encouragement for prayer?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, that is the question, isn’t it? I mean, I grew up thinking that he’s talking about his second coming when he says, when the Son of Man comes, will he find the faith on the earth? Now, for those who don’t know, let me get some background. The parable is of a woman who had a legal grievance against somebody who was oppressing her. She was a widow, so she was powerless in society and someone more powerful was taking advantage of her, probably in some financial way. So she was approaching a judge asking him to vindicate her, and he wasn’t interested. Jesus sets it up. He says the judge didn’t fear God. He didn’t fear man. And so he just didn’t care about her. She didn’t have any power. She couldn’t grease his palm. She’s poor. So he just ignored her. And Jesus said she kept begging him. She kept begging him, and he said, Within himself, you know, I don’t care about this woman or I don’t care about God or man, but I don’t want this woman bugging me. So I guess I’ll give her what she wants. And that’s the parable there. And then Jesus said, you know, hear what the unjust judge said. And shall not God avenge his elect, you know, who call out to him day and night? And he says he will avenge them and speedily. And he says, but when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth? Now, when the Son of Man comes, the word come is obviously used associated with his second coming in many passages, in my opinion. I say in my opinion because there are some people who think it always refers to 70 A.D., but I think they’re wrong. I believe sometimes, though, the coming of the Son of Man is used in the sense that the Old Testament prophets used the idea of God coming, that is, coming in judgment, not literally coming, And when God said that he’s coming to Egypt in Isaiah 19.1, he’s talking about the Assyrian armies coming to Egypt and defeating it. And that kind of thing happens in Micah 1. God says he’s coming down and he’s treading on the mountains and they’re going to melt and all that stuff. And he’s talking about, in my opinion, the judgment coming on Jerusalem. And that was with the Babylonians. The thing is, though, that… I don’t think the word come always refers to figurative judgments. I think that Jesus is going to come again because the angel said in Acts 1.11, you know, this same Jesus whom you saw going to heaven will come back in the same way as you saw him go. And so I don’t think 70 AD was the same way he left. I think there is a future second coming. The Bible talks about a resurrection and so forth. So I don’t apply all of the passages about his coming to one thing Neither did the Old Testament. The Old Testament used the term quite about very many things. If God was going to judge a nation, it was not uncommon to say he’s coming in judgment to them. But it’s really not him personally. It doesn’t mean they’ll see him. It just means that he’s acting in judgment against them, usually through some invading army. Now, that’s background that you already know, George. I mean, Peter, excuse me. But some of our audience may not. There’s people listening for the first time. So when Jesus, when the Son of Man comes, will he find the faith on the earth? I kind of lean toward the view that he’s talking about 70 AD there. And while, I mean, everything he said there would be equally applicable to the end of the world and the second coming of Christ. So, I mean, I don’t see why it can’t be applied in our situation as well. But I do think that the widow… is probably the faithful remnant of Israel. And the one oppressing her were the apostate in Israel. And they’re crying out to God for vindication. Now, of course, the judge in the case is painted in really negative colors. He doesn’t fear God. He doesn’t fear man. He doesn’t care about this woman. But Jesus isn’t saying God is that way. He’s saying this woman’s, you know, when we pray, sometimes it seems like God’s that way. You know, it seems like he’s not paying attention, like he doesn’t care. Of course he does. And it’s like when Jesus said elsewhere, if you earthly fathers being evil know how to give good things to your children, how much more will your heavenly father, implied who is clearly not evil, how much more will he do for his children? And he says that too. If the unjudged will do this, how much more? Will God avenge those who cry out to him day and night? And he says he will avenge them in that quickly. And I think the statement quickly, he’ll avenge them quickly, in my opinion, probably means it’s going to happen soon. Not that it would have to mean that, but Jesus makes quite a few references to things that are going to happen soon. Some of you standing here will not taste death until you see the Son of Man coming. Obviously, it’s not talking about the second coming. That’s, I believe, talking about AD 70. Some think otherwise. Some think it’s even about the transfiguration of it. But, you know, he basically says this is something that is going to happen soon. And therefore, I think he is probably referring not to the 2,000 years away judgment, but to what was coming within that generation, as he said a number of times. So I think it is probably part of that. And certainly the faithful remnant of Israel had been persecuted. And that was comprised also of the prophets, of course, as you mentioned. Jesus said the judgment of all the prophets from Abel to Zechariah was going to come on that generation, he said. And, you know, the last of those prophets mentions Zechariah. And it’s not the Zechariah who wrote the book of Zechariah. He’s talking about Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. He’s the last martyr in the Jewish canon of Scripture. Now, the Jewish Scriptures, the last book in the Jewish canon of Scripture was Chronicles, 1 and 2 Chronicles. And in 2 Chronicles, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was stoned to death between the temple and the altar and his dying words were something like God will avenge as he died he said something like God will bring this to account I forget the exact words because I’ve read different translations they’re not always the same but Jesus seems to be saying that God will avenge and quickly and so I think that the woman does represent the faithful remnant of Israel who’s been persecuted by the apostate kings and priests and so forth of Israel through the previous most of 1400 years. And so… I think he’s referring to that. So, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith in the earth? Of course, the word earth in the Greek is ge. In English, it should be the letters G-E, ge. And it also means land. So, it could have been translated with equal justice. Will he find faith in the land? And whenever the term the land is used without any modifier, it means the land of Israel. So… When Jesus comes in judgment on Israel in AD 70, will there be Christians in the land? The truth is, there weren’t. Because before the war began in 66 AD, according to Eusebius, the historian, the Christians in Jerusalem got a warning from God. that they should flee. And they fled. And they went out of the country. They went across the Jordan to a place called Pella in Transjordan. And, you know, according to Eusebius, all the Christians were gone before the Romans besieged the place. And so, if the coming of Jesus does refer to 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem, then he’s saying, will there be any believers here? That is to suffer the consequences. And the answer would be no. Now, that’s very different than the way I understood it growing up. But I will say this, that even if that is his meaning, it is not as if it doesn’t present challenges to us all, I mean, to continue praying. Because lots of times, God doesn’t vindicate us right away. He doesn’t answer our prayers right away. And of course, he’s not an unjust judge, but he’s in the parable. He’s suggesting, you know, this woman felt like it was kind of a hopeless situation, but she didn’t give up hope. And sometimes it seems hopeless to us if we’ve been praying a long time and something hasn’t happened. So, you know, it says in the opening verse of Luke 18, verse 1, it says this parable he told the disciples, or he spoke this parable to get across the message that men ought always to pray and not to lose heart. So I’m not sure that wouldn’t be equally true now as any other time. Men ought always to pray and Just because their prayers don’t come true right away, they shouldn’t lose heart. The King James, they should not faint, it says, you know, faint from discouragement. So he’s encouraging perseverance in prayer. And it may be that his audience, the immediate application of them had to do with the situation they’ve been praying for, vindication. On the other hand, I don’t see why it wouldn’t apply to all times and all people who are praying.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, no, I believe it could be applied both ways. And I just wondered as well if perhaps the specific audience he had as well, if there was some reference, if he was referring to, yeah, the coming judgment on Jerusalem. But, no, Steve, thanks for putting me first. And I know you’ve got other callers. God bless you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Sleep well. I know it’s late there.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, I was going to say good night. All right. God bless you, man. Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Yeah, I mean, we have to remember, too, that when Jesus said, when the Son of Man comes, we have to ask, okay, in Luke 18, at that early point, what did the disciples think the word the Son of Man comes means? They had no concept of the second coming because they didn’t have any concept of his first leaving. They thought he, you know, they had waited the Messiah. He showed up. They didn’t expect him to go anywhere. He’s there. Remember, after he rose from the dead, they said, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? They’re thinking he’s going to be getting busy there in Israel. And, you know, that’s the last thing they said to him before he ascended, disappeared. It wasn’t, I don’t think it was until the angels said, well, he’s going to come back again. I don’t think it was until then that the disciples had a concept of the second coming. So what did they think he meant when he said when the Son of Man comes? Well, they were familiar with the Jewish idioms that he had predicted or would. He would predict, you know, that, you know, he would come and destroy the temple in 70 A.D. and that generation. So I think they probably understood the son of man coming just to mean the same thing the prophets meant when they use that expression, namely when he judges, when he judges, that’s him coming. But, you know, it’s a hard one. You’re right. It could go either way. My suggestion is the way I’ve come to see it differently than I used to. Let’s go to the phones again and talk to Ward in Junction City, Oregon. Ward, welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. Hi. Thank you. I’ve asked you before about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they visited me again yesterday, and they had two points that I wanted to mention to you. I think it’s in Colossians 1.15.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, that he’s the firstborn of all creation, yeah.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes. So if you could address that for me.
SPEAKER 02 :
The other one is Revelation chapter 3, right?
SPEAKER 05 :
No, chapter 1. Well, yes, but they mentioned that they are the only organization that refers to God by the name Jehovah and the rest of it call him God, which could mean anybody, any God. But they call him Jehovah, and so they’re the only ones addressing the true God.
SPEAKER 02 :
So they think. Right. Okay, well, let me just answer those if I can. On the second one first, Jehovah’s Witnesses have told me, you need to call God Jehovah, because if you just say God, he won’t know which God you’re calling on. You have to name him. And why I thought is, you must think God’s kind of stupid, don’t you? I mean, like, I can speak to somebody in the room, and I don’t even have to call them by name, even though I’m talking to them. You know, I called my dad, Dad. I never called him Daryl, which was his name. But he knew which dad in the universe I was speaking to. And God knows. And Jesus never told us to call God Jehovah. That’s the thing. He said, when you pray, say, Our Father. He never said pray Jehovah. More than that, Jehovah isn’t even a correct pronunciation. In Hebrew, it’d sound more like Yahweh. And that’s probably not even exact. But it’s closer. Jehovah is a… In Hebrew, there’s not even a J sound. So, I mean, there’s no way that God was ever called Jehovah by… anybody in Israel. So they’ve just got, they’re wrong on all many counts. But, you know, it’s not as if people who aren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses are unfamiliar with the name Jehovah. I mean, the King James Version has that name. Modern translations probably say Yahweh, because that’s a better rendering of the Hebrew letters. But the point is, I don’t know any knowledgeable Christian who’s unaware of who Jehovah is or who God is, and that’s the same God or Yahweh. So, I mean, they’re really kind of, you know, picking at things to make themselves superior. They’re really off target there. Now, there is an issue there with Colossians 115. And I thought the other scripture you were going to use was in Revelation where Jesus spoke of himself as the beginning of the creation of God. They always link those two verses together. In Colossians 115, Jesus is said to be… the firstborn of all creation. And then in Revelation, he calls himself the beginning of the creation of God. Now, both of those things refer to Jesus in terms of creation. One says he’s the firstborn of all creation. One says he’s the beginning of creation. And they say, see, he’s not the creator. He’s a created thing. He’s the first thing God created, Jehovah created. So they believe that Jesus is not God, but he’s the greatest and first thing that God ever created. They believe he’s superior and had a prior existence in heaven before he was born in Bethlehem, like we do, but they just don’t say he was God. And these verses are among the ones that they use. Now, what did Paul mean in Colossians 1.15 when he said Jesus was the firstborn of all creation? Well, he didn’t say he was the first created thing. And he didn’t even mean to say that he’s part of the natural creation. Paul, I think, expresses it more clearly three verses later, which is obviously the same context. I take verse 18 to be explanatory of his phrase. where he’s in Colossians 1.18, Paul says that Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. And actually in Revelation, I think it’s 1.5, if I’m not mistaken, Jesus refers to himself as the first begotten from the dead. And so the firstborn speaks of his resurrection. Now, by the way, not all evangelicals see it that way, but I mean, I believe that’s, I think Paul explains himself. He says he’s the firstborn of all creation. What do you mean? Well, the firstborn from the dead of all creation. Meaning the whole of creation is also going to be coming from the dead, in a sense. I mean, Paul says in Romans 8 that the whole creation groans and travails, and it’s awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God, which will be the redemption of our body at Jesus’ coming. We’re going to be raised from the dead. We’ll be glorified. He says the whole creation is going to be benefited. They’re going to be delivered from the bondage of decay, too. In other words, the whole of creation is going to experience this glorification event. And Jesus did before anyone else in the creation. He’s not a part of the creation, but the whole creation will experience the analogy of being born from the dead. And he’s the first of the new creation in that sense. Now, when Jesus said he’s the beginning of the creation of God, the word beginning, arche, in the Greek, can mean the source or origin. Rather than the first thing created, he’d be the origin of the creation or the source of the creation, the one that created all things. So, you know, they really, obviously anyone can find a verse, take it out of context, misunderstand it a certain way, ignore the possible meanings of the Greek words or whatever. People can use the Bible to prove any kind of weird thing they want. And they have, by the way, every cult has done that. But I believe that The teaching of John 1-1, that Jesus is the Word and that he was God, that’s hard for me to get around. And it’s not the only place where he’s referred to as God. So he’s not a creation. Even Micah 5-2 says, He’ll come from Bethlehem. It says his goings forth are from of old, even from eternity or from everlasting, he says. So I don’t think that the Bible allows that Jesus had a beginning point or a time of when he was created. And those two verses certainly do not. insist upon it at all. In fact, I think the wording of them and the context of them would suggest an entirely different meaning to that. So, I just don’t find anything persuasive about the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ points. Those ones or any other ones they make. Okay. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you for your call. We’re going to talk to, let’s see, it’s getting late here. Isaiah in O’Fallon, Missouri. Isaiah, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey, Steve, if we’re about to hit a break, let me know. It’s not a long, long question, but it’s a good question.
SPEAKER 02 :
There’s one coming up, a break coming up, but go ahead and give me the question. I might have to answer it after a break.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay. So in John 5, verse 14, Jesus tells the man he just healed, See your well, sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you. And my question is, does sin… Can that cause health challenges? And I ask this because I’m eight weeks recovering from a heart and kidney transplant. I had a really horrific summer with cardiac arrests. And anyway, I’m good now. But it’s kind of painful to think that although I’m a Christian, is my sin causing all these chronic health issues I’ve had since I was born? Or does it matter that this man was in the Old Covenant era and the New Covenant Christians can expect maybe not to be punished for their sin with health challenges. Anyway, that’s my question. Thank you for all you do, Steve.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Well, thank you for your question. First of all, you say you’ve had these health challenges since you were a child. That makes you sound more like a parallel to the man who was born blind. The disciples asked who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind in John 9, the opening verses. and Jesus said well this no no one said neither neither this man nor his parents said he was born blind but so that you know God might be glorified in him in that case God was glorified by healing him although sometimes God is glorified in people who are disabled without healing them people like there’s I don’t know if you know about Johnny Erickson Tata for example has been paralyzed from the neck down since she was about 19 years old and she’s in her 70s now and She has not been healed, but God has definitely been glorified in her condition, as anyone who knows her story would know. And she’s certainly not alone in that. So Jesus made it very clear that the assumption that somebody sinned in order to cause this birth defect, and it had to be him or his parents because who else would be involved? Jesus indicates this has nothing to do with it either. Now, he’s not saying that the man never sinned or that the parents never sinned. He says neither this man nor his parents sinned. He’s saying whatever sinning anyone might have done has nothing to do with him being born blind. It’s not relevant. Now, in John 5, 14, where Jesus said, go and sin no more lest something worse happen to you, there may be a suggestion that there was some connection between some sin he had committed before, and he paid the price of it with some paralysis. He’d been paralyzed for a long time. And that, you know, he shouldn’t do that anymore. But it would not give reason to think that every time somebody is sick, that is because of some sin they’ve committed. I don’t, you know, I don’t know that it always is. I mean, obviously, if someone has cirrhosis of the liver and they happen to have been a heavy drinker all their life, we could say, yeah, I think your sin had a lot to do with your physical condition. But if there’s no natural or obvious connection, if there’s not a cause and effect that’s obvious, I would not assume it. I would just assume that everybody gets sick sometimes. Well, maybe not every last person, but most people do. Job got really sick, and the Bible specifically says he hadn’t done anything wrong. So I’d put that out of your mind unless you know of some sin. But I think since this is from your childhood, it pretty much tells us it’s not related to sin. You didn’t sin as a child in some way that God would be punishing you for. I need to take a break, but I thank you for your call. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. We have another half hour coming. Don’t go away. I’ll be back in 30 seconds.
SPEAKER 01 :
The Narrow Path is on the air due to the generous donations of appreciative listeners like you. We pay the radio stations to purchase the time to allow audiences around the nation and around the world by way of Internet to hear and participate in the program. All contributions are used to purchase such airtime. No one associated with The Narrow Path is paid for their service. Thank you for your continued support.
SPEAKER 02 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’ve got another half hour to talk with you and you with me if you want to call in with your questions about the Bible or the Christian faith. I’d be very happy to talk to you. And the number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Michael from Denver, Colorado. Michael, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Steve, thank you so much for taking my call. And as always, I want to extend my deepest appreciation, as always, for the transformative information that you share every day. It means a lot. And so, yeah, I just had kind of a quick question today. I had read an article earlier that gave me kind of the initial impetus to call in and ask about this. So James Dobson, the outspoken architect of evangelical Christian issues, is finally dead at 89. James Dobson helped propel U.S. evangelicals back into politics is the headline. And You know, I think there’s no doubt he was one of the most vocal voices from a Christian side of things that would, you know, unapologetically do that as far as like endorsing candidates publicly, Christian candidates. But I’m just curious to know kind of your thoughts on the kind of precedent he set of Christian leadership, you know, being maybe over unapologetic or maybe overly outspoken about social issues kind of regarding the Christian faith and unapologetically doing You know, endorsing candidates with Christian backgrounds.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Yeah, I’ll be glad to address that. Thank you for that question. James Dobson did. In fact, he was very good. politically active. And, of course, his ministry didn’t begin that way. It began with his teachings about family. He’s a Christian psychologist is how he identified. And he wrote the book Dare to Discipline, which I think was his first big best-selling book, and started to focus on the family and stuff and ran that for years. And I would say, apart from his teaching about psychology, I found little to disagree with him about. I mean, theologically, I didn’t think there was much wrong with him. His politics I didn’t find very much to disagree with, but maybe nothing. I don’t remember if I did. You know, whenever he’d have a program about psychology, I’d have my issues with that. But you’re interested in knowing whether he was maybe too much involved with politics and maybe he directed the church kind of in a wrong direction to be more politically active. Well, the balance of the Christian politics disposition about politics is not the easiest one to find. Before the existence of countries like ours, where the citizens actually choose their rulers and have something to say about the laws that are made, before there was this kind of a country, there were mostly just monarchies. And the kings made all the laws, and you couldn’t elect the king or elect someone to replace him. And so Christianity just was, you know, when they were persecuted or when they had to live under kings that had bad laws, they just had to grin and bear it. because there’s nothing they could do, and all they’re told to do in the Bible is just submit to that, submit to the rulers. But you see, in modern nations like ours, I mean, certainly not all modern nations are like ours, but the ones that are like ours, where we actually choose our leaders, it’s kind of like the political situation is upside down, until the foundation, before the creation of America, for example, All the nations had top-down authorities. The people weren’t the rulers. They were the subjects and the servants of the kings. But the way the Constitution set up our country, the people are the rulers and the elected officials are their servants. I mean, this is a, you remember Abraham Lincoln’s words, a nation governed by, you know, of the people, by the people, for the people. The people are the ones governing. And we’re really over the politicians in a sense with this kind of a government. We’re the ones in the position of rulership. And if the politicians are not pleasing to us, they govern at our pleasure. We can replace them with someone else. And that’s a really different situation than was ever known in ancient times. But it raises questions. The early Christians didn’t have any opportunity to affect politics. political change, so they just had to go along. But in biblical times, the rulers had the obligation to govern righteously and wisely, according to God’s will, or else they could stand judgment from God. Well, now we’re the rulers, and so it seems to me that we have the stewardship. If we don’t promote righteousness in a nation, then we are contributing to the doom of the nation. And it’s on us more than it’s even on the people we choose, because we chose them. And if we keep choosing them and they keep doing the wrong thing, that’s on them too, but it’s on us mostly. And so, you know, there’s a sense in which Christians living in a country where technically the citizens are the ones in charge of choosing leaders and promoting certain laws, we have a stewardship responsibility that we wouldn’t have if we were living under an emperor or a Caesar or something like that, or even a modern dictator that we couldn’t do anything about. So I think that whatever opportunities we have, and this was true of Christians at all times, anything that God has given you, Money, time, position, talent, anything you can use to promote the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Remember, Jesus said, seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Anything we have that can be used that way, we are responsible stewards, and God will hold us accountable for it. We’ll have to answer for it. So one of the things we have stewardship of that ancient people did not have is we have stewardship of the direction the country goes. Now, I think Christians can get really distracted by politics and all this to the point where they think that the salvation of the nation is going to be through political candidates, picking the right candidates. This is not true. I mean, none of the candidates are our savior. None of them are sovereign. In fact, we can’t even be blindly loyal to any of them. Even the best ones can do wrong things and be bad. But we do have some role in trying to at least populate the government with people who’ve got common sense and morals. They may not all be Christians simply because there may not be enough Christians even running for office. But if we’re going to say, okay, we’ve got a vacancy here in the Senate or in Congress or in the local government, the governor or the president, And there’s two candidates or more. If one of them stands for positions that will promote justice and righteousness in a nation, and the other stands for positions that will demolish justice and righteousness, I mean, I’m just going to stay home. I’m not going to speak about this. Well, maybe we’re burying our talent and not using it. You know, we have a stewardship issue. And I think Christians do need to speak up for righteousness and justice. Now, I don’t think righteousness and justice are, strictly speaking, religious or spiritual topics, though God is very much concerned about them. But they have to do with governance also. God judged Israel because their rulers were corrupt and did unjust things. And in a sense, we’re the rulers of this country. And if we don’t do what we can to prevent Satan from governing the whole system… then I think we’ll answer that. And it’s not because God… We think of it in terms of, well, we’re responsible for the country in sort of an abstract way. No, we’re responsible for our neighbor. We’re supposed to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. But we also know that an unjust government is not good for anybody. And if we don’t have just rulers, our neighbors, as well as ourselves, are going to suffer injustice that was unnecessary if it had just In Proverbs, it says, when the righteous are in power, the people rejoice. But when the wicked arise, the people groan. And, you know, I think, you know, I don’t want to groan. I’d rather rejoice. But even if I had no interest in it myself. As a Christian, I’m interested in other people not having to groan under bad rulership, especially my children and their contemporaries and my grandchildren. I mean, there’s a sense in which if we just stand by and say, hey, just let it go down. This was the attitude that I have to say I took when I was a dispensationalist. And I’m not saying dispensationalism necessarily causes that attitude, but it often accompanies it. That is, if dispensations think, well, we’re going to be raptured any minute, the whole world’s going to be under the Antichrist this time next week. So what’s the point? What’s the point of polishing the brass on a sinking ship, right? I mean, let’s just evangelize and get people into the lifeboats. Well, you know, if we know for sure that the country’s going to end tomorrow, maybe there isn’t much reason to polish the brass. But we don’t know that. And many people thought the coming of Christ was soon. But Jesus said when he comes, he wants to find his servants ministering to their fellow servants. And, you know, there are different ways to minister. But I would say that if Hitler was in charge of Germany, And I was, you know, I had a choice to vote for him or for his, you know, his opponent. And I didn’t vote for his opponent when I could. I would feel like I’d wasted an important opportunity. And I would feel the same thing as a citizen of any nation if I have the right and the power. to put forward policies and persons ruling who will protect the innocent, well then, yeah, I’m going to do that. Why not? Isn’t that a Christian duty? I mean, the Christian duty is, as Jesus put it several times, love your neighbor as you love yourself. Paul repeated that too in Romans 13 and in Galatians 5. So this is the summary of Christian duty. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Well, I was given a lot of freedoms by my parents and ancestors and people who formed this nation. If I don’t do that for my children and the next generation, how am I loving them the way I love myself? So, I mean, this is how I think about it now. When I used to just think, well, the rapture’s coming any day. It never occurred to me that being involved in any politics would make any sense. In fact, it seemed like a distraction. But since I don’t know that Jesus is coming any day, and my children and grandchildren might actually have to live full lifetimes in this country or around the world, I’m very interested in them having freedom to serve God and living under justice instead of injustice. And, you know, Jesus said we should certainly pray for Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. And in those days with their Caesars and so forth, their kings, they couldn’t do much more than pray. But we can pray and we can also do something about it. And if we don’t put our, as it were, our money where our mouth is, it raises questions how sincere we are even in our prayers. If I want righteousness, if I’m praying for righteousness to prevail on earth as it does in heaven, and I have the opportunity to do something about it, I just say, I don’t think I will. It raises serious questions whether my prayers are based on any real passion I have for righteousness or not. So those are my thoughts. Did Dobson go too far? I don’t know. I think a lot of Christians didn’t go far enough before him. And I’m not going to say he did go too far because I don’t know how too far is. If Christians begin to trust in government for salvation and so forth and for the kingdom of God to prevail on the earth, That’s going too far. That’s putting too much trust in government. But if that’s not what they’re doing, if they’re saying, I’m trusting in God, but I’m going to do what I can, you know, I’m going to trust in the Lord and do good, like the psalm says. And so I’m going to, I’m trusting God, but if he’s giving me opportunity to do good, I’m going to do that too. So I think that’s kind of how I look at that whole question. I appreciate your call, brother. Thank you for joining us. Let’s talk next to Susan from Anaheim, California. Susan, welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes, thank you, Steve. That was such a thorough answer that you just gave, like you usually do. I have a question. Let’s see. I know that all three of the persons of the Godhead are involved in creation, but could you clarify, because of Genesis 1, where father does it, and then in Colossians it says like the son does a bunch of, or it’s through him. So who is the primary creator, and how is the son involved? And that’s because there’s a song called Jesus, You Alone, and it’s giving all the creation credit to Jesus alone.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, sometimes popular worship songs aren’t 100% theologically sound. Jesus didn’t do it alone. In fact, the Bible says everything was created through him. It says that in Colossians 1.15. It also says that in John 1. It says, in the beginning was the Word, the Word is with God. The word was with God, was God. And it says all things were made through him and without him was nothing made that was made. So what the Bible teaches is not that all things were made by him, but through him. Now, he therefore was in partnership with his father or he was the agent through whom his father did it. Now, I have to say. When you start differentiating between the actions of the Father and the actions of the Son and the actions of the Holy Spirit, sometimes we end up in speculative areas where the Bible is not explicit. You know, how was the Spirit involved? Well, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the Spirit was hovering over the face of the waters. What was he doing? Brooding. Well, what did he do then? Well, we’re not exactly told, but something. You know, he was involved. We know that God spoke and said, let there be light. Well, speaking is his word. And he did all the creation through his word. That is through speaking. You know, it’s interesting in Genesis 1 when it describes the creation, it doesn’t mention the word. It just speaks of God speaking, which is words. But in Psalm 33, 6, it says… By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made, and the host of them by the breath of his mouth. So, you know, God said, and it was so, and the way the psalmist puts it, that was done by the word of the Lord, the heavens were made. And so the New Testament says, yeah, and that word is Jesus. And so it was done through him. Now, I have a feeling whenever we talk to Trinity, people are hoping that someone will make all of this clear. And I’m not the man to do that because I have to say I don’t like to go beyond what the Scripture says or fall short of what it says. I know some people who doubt the Trinity because of some of these problems. They’re trying to figure out how it works. I believe the Bible teaches the Trinity. But I don’t think the Bible teaches as much about the Trinity, clearly, as theologians often do. If you get a systematic theology and read about the Trinity, they’re going to say a whole bunch of things about the Trinity, which may be true or possibly may not be some of them, because they go beyond what Scripture says. Even to say of the tree that God is one in substance and three in persons, we’ve resorted to extra-biblical language. The Bible doesn’t use the word substance or persons. I don’t have an objection to the concept that’s expressed there. And I think it’s probably a correct thing to say, but it’s using words that go beyond what the Bible says. And therefore, I mean, here’s the thing. This will surprise us because we consider the Trinity doctrine. That’s the core of Christian faith. We never find Jesus sitting down with his disciples and giving them an explanation of the Trinity. And after he’s gone, we don’t find any of the apostles giving an explanation of the Trinity. We see allusions. Baptizing the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is an allusion to the Trinity, but It’s not exactly a teaching about the Trinity. It doesn’t explain it. And there’s other things. Other times we see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit mentioned together in Paul’s writings or even in the Gospels. like at the baptism of Jesus, but none of those things explain the Trinity. There is in Scripture no explanation of the Trinity. Well, so we know the Trinity doctrine is a true doctrine, but to try to fill in the gaps might be a fool’s errand. You know, we don’t like having gaps in our knowledge, but if God left gaps, maybe it’s a mistake to try to fill them with our imagination. I remember A.W. Tozer said that, you know, don’t try to imagine God because then you’ll have an imaginary God. Well, if you’re trying to fill in the gaps that God didn’t reveal about certain things like the Trinity, you may have a Trinity, but it might be an imaginary Trinity in some respects. So, fortunately, I mean, though these are valid questions, I’m not scolding you. I have questions, too, about the Trinity that I can’t answer. But I will say this, that as much as we put emphasis on the doctrine of the Trinity, that emphasis, at least, it’s not in the Bible enough to, it’s not a concern enough to have any writer of the Bible explain it. So I think we’re supposed to just recognize Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit, they are all God. In one way. And they’re not all each other. They are, you know, the father and the son are different in some respects. And the Holy Spirit. It’s very unsatisfied to someone who maybe have like a mind of an engineer or something trying to figure or mathematician trying to figure out how this works. But if we realize that, you know, probably there’s a lot of things about God that are above our pay grade. You know, I mean, we just don’t have the capacity to. We don’t have an analogy in nature for them. You know, one of the most common things is for Christians to try to come up with analogies for the Trinity. Oh, it’s like water can be, you know, steam, liquid or solid. Or, you know, it’s like an egg. It’s got the shell and the egg white and the yolk. Or it’s like this or that or a person, his body, soul and spirit. So it’s kind of like that. Well, is it like that or is it not? We have no idea. The Bible doesn’t use analogies like that and doesn’t use any except of a father and a son. We do know something about fathers and sons, but even that is not exact. So, you know, I guess I’m saying we can get distracted by theological curiosities that God has not encouraged us to get into. You know, it says in Psalm 131, David said, Oh, Lord, my heart is not haughty. Neither do I exercise myself in great matters or things too high for me. I think one of the things that I learned by becoming an older Christian was that things I thought were hills to die on, to fight over, to explain, to argue with other Christians over the exact details, And most of those are not. Most of those are not hills to die on. And, you know, as Jesus said to Martha, you know, Martha, you’re concerned about a lot of things, but only one thing is needful. And that’s what Mary is doing. She’s listening to me. And, you know, she’s a follower of mine. And that’s it really comes down to that. Christians can explore theological topics, and sometimes if they’re not content to have some ignorance on some points, they’ll make up stuff to fill the gaps. And then they won’t feel they have ignorance anymore, so there’s no sense looking for answers anymore. But they might have the wrong answers. I say it’s a great thing. To follow Jesus, let him be the teacher, I certainly believe in the Trinity, but to explain all of how they interact and so forth would require going beyond Scripture. into a realm that we’re not required to know in order to be Christians. So I say that to everybody, not specifically to you, Susan, but that’s my thought whenever people ask me about the specifics. But, yeah, Jesus is God in whatever sense the Bible says he’s God, and he was involved in the creation, but it doesn’t say that, that he did it alone. So whatever worship song you’re quoting that says he did it alone, it’s one of those typical worship songs where somebody said something they thought was a good thing to say and, you know, a theologically illiterate church began to make it a popular song. Anyway, I appreciate you bringing this up. God bless you. I need to take another call, but thanks for joining us. All right. Very, very much. All right. Bye-bye. Okay, our next caller is going to be, and we’ve got a lot of people we won’t be able to get on, unfortunately, but Kim from Arlington, Washington is next. Kim, welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thanks, Steve. How are you doing?
SPEAKER 02 :
Good.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, it seems like every time I open the book of Revelation and I get, you know, 20, 22 in there, and I’m reading like the holy city, and, you know, we’ve got, angels knocking the door and outside are basically a lot of dark, sinful people. And then those who are saved, they just get to come in and go out as they want. Is that your understanding?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, my understanding is that Revelation is very symbolic. I think even the description of the city is in symbolic terms. I mean, for example, it’s described as if it’s a cube shape, 1,500 miles each direction. You know, I’m not sure that’s literal. I mean, it could be, but I wouldn’t see why you’d have to use… You know, it’s described as if it’s a Holy of Holies. In the temple, or in the tabernacle, the Holy of Holies was 15 feet by 15 feet by 15 feet cube. Also, there’s no natural light in it. There were no windows or anything like that, and there’s a thick veil keeping the light out, but there was only the glory of God over the mercy seat illuminating the Holy of Holies. That’s how the city is. The city had no need for the sun or the moon to shine in it, but the glory of God and of the Lamb are the light of it. So I think that there’s some symbolism there saying this city is like the Holy of Holies. It’s the place where God meets with people. That’s where people commune with God. God has made his home among men. In fact, it actually says that. It says in Revelation 22, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall be their God, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them and be their God. For the former things have passed away, and he makes all things new. So, you know, I think it’s all quite symbolic, the idea that the streets are made of gold, pure gold, transparent. I don’t know if gold can ever be so pure that it’s literally transparent, but the idea is that the path, it says in the Proverbs, the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn that grows brighter and brighter until full day. I think it has to do with the perfection and the purification of the people there who walk that path. that were perfected like gold is through the fire and now we’re pure when we’re there. Gates of pearl are there. I don’t think that’s literal. The awfully big pearls, I’d like to see the oysters they came from. But the thing is that pearls are valuables that were created by pain. And again… the perfection of the people of God, just like the perfecting of Jesus. The book of Hebrews says Jesus was made perfect through suffering. He says, so are we going to be. And so I believe this is all describing the Christian community, which is the city of God. Paul said in Galatians 4, the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all, which I think he means the church is the spiritual mother of us all as individual Christians. In Hebrews 2, 12, I think it’s verse 24, or thereabouts, not far from there, the writer says, you have come, or we have come, to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, which he says, which is the general assembly and church of the firstborn, who are registered in heaven. So, the heavenly Jerusalem, he says, is the church. And lo and behold, in Revelation, when John first sees the heavenly city come down, he said, it’s coming down dressed like a bride. He sees that in the opening verses of chapter 21, but then After verse 9, it says one of the elders said, Come, I’ll show you the Lamb’s wife. And he took me to a high mountain. I saw the New Jerusalem having the glory of God coming down. That’s the Lamb’s wife? Well, who’s the Lamb? Jesus. Well, who’s his wife? The church. So the city is a symbol of the church. And as far as people coming in and going out, I think the glorified church will reign on the new earth. And I think some people… are going to rain and some are going to be rained over. Jesus seemed to indicate that. I’m out of time, though. I wish I wasn’t. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
