In this episode of The Narrow Path, Steve Gregg explores the intricacies of biblical interpretation, addressing the ways in which Old Testament promises might apply to modern Christians. Through listener questions, we dive into Ezekiel 36 and Isaiah 65, examining the historical and spiritual contexts of these passages. Join us as we untangle the threads between prophecies made to Israel and the new covenant Christians are part of today.
SPEAKER 05 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon. Take in your calls if you have questions you want to raise on the air about the Bible or the Christian faith or you have a difference of opinion from the host that you’d like to raise for conversation. Feel free to give me a call. The number is 844- We have a couple of lines open, so it’s an opportunity for you if you want to get on. The number is 844-484-5737. And our first caller today is Alan calling from Grass Valley, California. Hi, Alan. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi, Steve. So my question, I’m going to give a verse. And ask about the verse. But my real question is more general. The verse is Ezekiel 36, 26. And it says, I will give you a new heart and a new spirit. And I’ve been taught in my church that this verse applies to me, that God will regenerate me in order that I can turn to him. But when I read the whole passage around it, it’s pretty clear that the rest of the passages around this can only apply to Israel when it says things like, you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers in 3628. So my overall question is, when I read a passage in the Bible, how can I tell if it applies in general to like all Christians or whether it’s, you know, really targeted specifically to the people that are being addressed?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, one way you can tell the difference is if the promise that you’re reading in the Old Testament also has corresponding repetition of the same promises in the New Testament because the New Testament is written for Christians. Now, the fact that this is written to Jewish people doesn’t mean that it’s not applicable to Christians because he’s talking to the faithful remnant of Israel in Babylon. Now, a lot of people want to apply this passage to the present day and God bringing the Jews back from all different countries to their land now. But there’s nothing in the passage that would suggest that that’s talking about the present day. Ezekiel lived during the Babylonian exile. And God gave many prophecies through him about the fact that God would bring the Israelites back from that exile. And this is one of them. So, you know, he says… that he would bring them back. And verse 24, he says, I’ll take you from among the nations and gather you out of all the countries and bring you into your own land. That’s what he did. In 539 B.C., he brought the faithful remnant back to their land. Now, by the way, although God doesn’t always specify that these promises are only to the faithful remnant, there’s a general principle that is stated many times in Scripture that if people do not have faith in God, there will be no special favor upon them. In fact, it says in Hebrews, without faith it’s impossible to please him. But in the Old Testament, the assumption always existed that there was a faithful remnant in Israel, even when the nation itself was largely apostate. And the faithful remnant are the ones that were on God’s side, and he was on their side. And it is the faithful remnant that this applies to. Now, it doesn’t mention the remnant in this passage, but many passages on similar subjects do. For example, in Isaiah chapter 10, it says the remnant shall return, talking about the returning of the exiles. It says the remnant shall return, the remnant to the mighty God of Israel. And there’s many places where this is stated to be the remnant. Other times it just doesn’t mention it’s the remnant, but the assumption is there that God is talking to people who are faithful to him, not people who are in rebellion against him. And so what happened was when The Persians conquered the Babylonian Empire. Cyrus, the leader of the Persian Empire, gave permission to all the aliens who had been taken captive from their own lands by Nebuchadnezzar, the previous conqueror. And that included the Jews. And they were given permission to go back to Jerusalem and to rebuild the temple. It says in Ezra 1, verse 5, that when this decree was given, all those whose hearts were moved went. In other words, all the ones who were, their hearts were in the project. They were the ones who were loyal to God. Now, that turned out to be only about 50,000 people who went back with Zerubbabel. Later, some more, a smaller number, went back with Ezra and a smaller number also with Nehemiah. So there were several waves of returnees, but it still consisted of the small minority of the Jewish people who were in captivity. But he did bring that remnant back, as he said he would there in verse 24. Then he says, I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and all your idols. Now, see, the point here is that they were taken into captivity in Babylon because of their idolatry. And now they are the repentant remnant. God’s going to cleanse them from that past sin. He’s going to clean them. up from their idols and their filthiness and so forth. So in other words, he’s giving them a new start. As they come back to restart the nation of Israel from scratch again and to build the temple again, he’s going to treat them as if they hadn’t sinned before. They’ve already been punished for 70 years in Babylon. Now he’s given them a clean slate to start over. And then he says in verse 26, I’ll give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and and give you a heart of flesh now this he did of course when he brought the remnant back they were of a different spirit than before they didn’t worship idols anymore and then he says in verse 27 I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and you will keep my judgments and do them now putting his spirit in them really didn’t happen until Pentecost but it was also the faithful remnant of the Jews in Jerusalem, upon whom the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. And many of the prophets, Ezekiel among them, but some others too, especially Isaiah more than most, and Joel and a few others, they said when the Messiah comes, he’s going to pour out his Spirit on the remnant of his people. And that’s, of course, what happened. Jesus came, and those who had been gathered back, of course they had been gathered back 500 years earlier, But so what? I mean, they had been gathered back and they were still back. And God said that he was going to now pour his spirit out upon that remnant. And you know that when the spirit was poured out of Pentecost, Peter said that this was the fulfillment of what Joel had said. And that statement, if you read it in Joel, the outpouring of the spirit, is applied to the remnant. It begins at Joel chapter 2, verse 28, where it says, And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy. And the whole lengthy passage, which is read by, or quoted by Peter in Acts chapter 2. And then it says, and this is where Peter actually ends the quotation, verse 32, It shall come to pass on that day that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. And the next line is, for in Mount Zion and Jerusalem there shall be deliverance or salvation, as the Lord has said, among the remnant whom the Lord calls. Okay, so it’s the remnant that are having the Spirit poured out on them. Now, Joel’s not talking about a different giving of the Spirit than Ezekiel’s talking about or than Isaiah’s talking about. It’s a repeated feature in the prophets that when the Messiah comes, God will give his spirit to the faithful remnant. So what Ezekiel has is a two-part prophecy. One is that the exiles in Babylon, their remnant will come back and reestablish the nation in their own land again. And then later, and this happened when the Messiah came, he’d pour out his spirit on them. The very same two features are found in Ezekiel 37, the next chapter. where God says he’s going to bring them back to their land in verse 12. And he also says in verse 14 of chapter 37, he’ll put his spirit in them and they will live. So those are the two things. God brought them back to the land and then 500 years later, he poured his spirit out on them. And that’s what Ezekiel is discussing. Now, does this apply to us? Well, it does because that remnant of Israel, upon whom God poured out his spirit in Jerusalem, eventually reached out and evangelized Gentiles too. And when Gentiles became believers, they were incorporated into the same body with that remnant, which we call the body of Christ. So we are now in this same group. that God said he would give his spirit to, he’d give a new heart to, he’d take the heart of stone out of Jeremiah. God said in Jeremiah 31 that he’d write his laws in their hearts. Same essential prophecy. So, yes, it does apply to us, but it was a promise made to Israel. But see, Israel, the faithful remnant of Israel, were God’s people in the Old Testament. The faithful remnant of Israel in the New Testament are his people now. They’re what we call believers, Christians. They were the Messianic Jews of the first century, but Gentiles joined them and became the whole thing and became what we today call the church, mixed Jews and Gentiles. So we are in that body to whom these promises are fulfilled. So you can say that this prophecy does apply to you, not the part about being gathered to the land. That was fulfilled in 539 B.C., but the part that was fulfilled in A.D. 30 at Pentecost, That applies to all of us who are Christians now. Now, you said, how can you know the difference between a prophecy or promise that’s given just to Israel and one that’s given to us? Well, generally speaking, the ones that are given to Israel are worded in terms of the Old Covenant. For example, that they be gathered to their land. That’s an Old Testament promise. The New Testament doesn’t claim that Christian Gentiles or Jews will be gathered to anywhere in particular. We’re going to fill the earth. The Bible says in Malachi that from the east to the west, or from the rising of the sun, which is the east, Until they’re going down there, which is the west, the name of God will be great among the Gentiles. So there’s no geographical area. Jesus said to the woman at the well, the hour is coming when they will not in Jerusalem or in Samaria worship the Father, but those who worship him will worship him in spirit and in truth. In other words, geography won’t matter. And it doesn’t. I mean, geography only mattered to the Jews once. really, in the Old Testament, but that was part of an Old Covenant promise. And, yeah, we don’t live under the Old Covenant. In fact, the Bible says the Old Covenant is obsolete now that the New Covenant has come. So any of the promises you find that are clearly, you know, cast in the terms of Old Covenant promises, the kinds of promises you find in the Torah, in the law, which God gave Israel to Sinai, Those promises are not for us. Those were for them. They’re not for them now either because that covenant’s old. That covenant is defunct. If anyone wants to come to God now, whether it’s Jew or Gentile, they can’t come on terms of the Sinaitic covenant. They have to come on the terms of the new covenant because the old one’s obsolete. And they have to come to Christ, in other words. So pretty much if the New Testament repeats the material in the promise, you can be pretty sure that the promise applies to you. But the ones that don’t apply to us are the ones that look like they’re confirming the Old Covenant promises. All right. Thank you. Thank you. God bless. Greg in Sonoma, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 01 :
Blessings, Steve. I have a couple of questions about dealing with time in the Bible passages that I’m about to read. In Matthew 16, verses 27 and 28. For the Son of Man is going to come in His Father’s glory with His angels, and He will reward each person according to what He has done. So the reward is the day of the Lord when He comes back the second time, or is it Also, for present time, that we are rewarded for the Bible passages we read and the prayers and furthering His kingdom. And then the second verse, 28, I tell you the truth. Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. And I was wondering, how could that be? And then I remembered in the next verse, chapter, the transfiguration, Peter, James, and John got to see him in his glory from the Father coming and saying, this is my son who I love and listen to him. And then I remembered another time in the resurrection after he was crucified, he was resurrected and showed himself to all the people furthering his kingdom. So what are your thoughts on that?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, my thoughts are the same as almost all Christians in one respect and different than many Christians in another. Almost all Christians agree that when he speaks of his coming in glory of his Father with his angels… and rewarding everyone according to their works in verse 27. It’s different than what he says, some of you standing here will not taste death until you see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. He’s coming in verse 27 with the glory of his angels, and he’s rewarding everyone. This is apparently the final day of judgment when Jesus returns. That’s predicted in verse 27. But then something more near-term is mentioned in verse 28, something that would happen in the lifetime. of some of those listening to him. Now, the only people I know that don’t think that these are talking about two different things are the people who call themselves full preterists. They believe that all prophecies have been fulfilled by the time that Jerusalem fell, and they believe that virtually all the promises of Jesus’ coming are about the fall of Jerusalem. Now, I don’t take this view personally. I do believe some passages that talk about Christ’s coming almost certainly do refer to A.D. 70, but the full preterists believe that all of them do, which they mean there’s no other second coming to anticipate other than what happened in 70 A.D. And I believe that’s what I wrote a whole book against that. And in my book, which is called Why Not Full Preterism, I deal with these two verses specifically. I give special treatment to them. Because, you know, the first one says the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he’ll reward everyone according to his works, which I take to be the future, second coming. And then, of course, verse 28, he also speaks of his coming. But he says, So they think that he’s saying that this coming in judgment and rewarding every man according to his works is the same coming that would happen in that generation. I don’t think so. And while my views on this may be different than some Christians, almost all Christians, certainly everybody who’s not a full preterist, would argue that Jesus is talking about his final coming in verse 27. But he’s saying some of you will live to see a precursor of this. Of my coming. You’ll see me coming in another sense. Now, it’s not strange to say that Jesus would speak of coming in another sense because there’s lots of ways in which Jesus is said to come that aren’t literal in the Bible. For example, in the seven letters, the seven churches, about four of them, I think he tells them he’s going to come to them. In one case, the Church of Ephesus says, if you don’t repent, I’ll come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, which simply is a threat that that church will no longer be around, which later happened, not in 70 AD, certainly, but centuries later it happened. That city of Ephesus isn’t even there anymore, nor is the church there. He also told the church of Sardis that he would come to them, and they’re gone now, too. That place is gone now, too. These are general references to him coming in judgment, not in his second coming, because the Jews and many of the prophets in the Old Testament used this idiom, this language, to speak of God’s judgment. When a judgment would come through what we might consider ordinary means, like the invasion of an army, or through a disaster or something, and some disaster happens, in many cases the prophets identify that disaster as God’s doing. that that is God’s sovereign working of his plan to bring judgment upon them. And therefore, poetically, it is said to be God coming to them, though he doesn’t literally come and it’s not suggesting that he does. It’s just a way of speaking. So when we see Jesus saying, I will come to you and you’ll have this disaster will happen to you, he doesn’t necessarily have to be talking about what we talk about, his literal second coming. And there are many times actually when that probably is the case, or I would say even certainly the case. Now, what I’m saying is that when Jesus told his disciples there will come a day when the whole world will be judged by his coming with his angels. Yet, in their lifetime, there will be a precursor of this, a smaller judgment, a different judgment. That’s not the final one. Now, my thought is he’s referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., though some people think, as you mentioned, he’s simply referring to what happened seven days later on the Mount of Transfiguration, where they saw Jesus and Moses and Elijah. Now, the argument for this is that Jesus said some of them would still be alive, and they certainly were seven days later. And all three of the synoptic gospels, they record this prediction Jesus made, and then the next thing they predict is the transfiguration. And so many scholars think, well, the reason is the gospel writers are telling us that the transfiguration of Christ was the fulfillment of this prediction, since all three of those gospels record the prediction, and then immediately afterwards record the transfiguration. Now, I mean, that could be true, But the problem with it is that if that’s what he’s talking about, then we have to explain why later than this, after the transfiguration in Matthew 24, he predicts again that he’s going to come in the lifetime of that generation. This generation will not pass, he says, before these things happen. I think what he speaks about what will happen in this generation is the same thing as what would happen before some of them had died. And I believe it’s the judgment on Jerusalem, which is described in Matthew 24. The temple being destroyed, not one stone being left standing on another. Jesus predicted that, and it happened in 70 AD. And I think that’s the judgment that Matthew 16, 28 refers to. But the previous verse talks about The more general judgment where everyone will be judged, not just Jerusalem. Now, Paul said in Romans chapter 2 that judgment will come on all who do evil to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. And there’s going to be a judgment on the Jews that would be first. And then another judgment on the Gentiles. And that is, of course, what happened. AD 70 is when the Jewish state was judged by the coming of the Romans, destroying their commonwealth and their temple and driving them into captivity. And then the Gentile nations will be judged separately at the coming of Christ. And Jesus also taught something like that fairly clearly to me. In Matthew 22, when he said that the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, he sent his servants out to invite his friends, which represent the Jewish people, being invited to come follow Christ, be part of his celebration of his kingdom, and they didn’t come. And then it says in verse 7, when he heard that the Jews didn’t come when invited, he says the king heard about it. Verse 7, he says he was furious, and he sent out his armies and destroyed those murderers and burned up their city, which obviously is AD 70. That’s when the Jews were punished and their city was burned up. And then it says, that’s not the end of the story. Then he said to his servants, the wedding is ready, but those who are invited were not worthy. Therefore, go into highways and byways, in other words, the roads that lead to foreign lands, and get the Gentiles. And as many as you find, invite to the wedding. So those servants went out into the highways and gathered all who they found, both good and bad. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. Now that gathering in from the Gentiles has been going on for almost 2,000 years. But at the end of it, the wedding feast is filled as the church has gathered a lot of people into it. But some are good and some are bad, so they’ve got to be sorted out. And it says in verse 11, but when the king came, notice when the king comes in this second instance. He didn’t come literally in verse 7. He sent his armies and burned up their city. But at the end of the age, when all the Gentiles were gathered, it says, when the king came in to see the guests, that’s, I think, the second coming of Christ, he saw a man there who did not have a wedding garment. He said to him, friend, how did you come here without a wedding garment? The man was speechless. Then the king said to his servants, bind him hand and foot, take him away, cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. So what we have in this story is Jesus comes the first time. God invites his friends, or the people he had a covenant with, The Jews, most of them reject it, and God therefore judges the Jewish state, burns down their city, as the way Jesus described it, and then the message goes out to the Gentiles, and they’d be gathered in. Now, that’s been happening for 2,000 years, but at the end of that time, when they’ve all been gathered in, we read that the king himself comes. He doesn’t send his armies this time. He comes himself. And he judges them, and he cleans house. Basically, some people came into the church on their own terms, not his. The man who didn’t have a wedding garment came as he was, as he wished to come. He came on his own terms. He didn’t come on the king’s terms, and therefore he’s thrown out. So I see two judgments here, one of the Jews and one of the Gentiles, just like Paul said. The Jew first will be judged, and then the Gentiles will be judged. And I think that’s what Matthew 16, verses 27 and 28 talk about. We see a reference to the judging of the world or the Gentiles in verse 27. But he says, but before that, before some of you are even dead, there’s going to be another judgment. He’s going to come in judgment on, I believe he’s referring there in 70 A.D., which would be the Jews. Anyway, there’s a lot to sort out. There’s a lot of Bible to sort out there. But I do have a book called Why Not Full Preterism, where I do deal with these passages in considerable length. All right. Thank you, Greg.
SPEAKER 01 :
Steve, on the wedding guest, it wasn’t closed, right? You think it was Jesus’s robe of righteousness? He never accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, that’s the way it’s often preached, but it’s not always clear if that’s what it’s meant. I mean, it could mean that, but I think one thing it certainly means is he didn’t come on God’s terms. He came on his own terms. Hey, I need to take a break here, but I will be back, so don’t go away. And thanks for calling. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming. Hope you’ll stay with us. We are a listener-supported ministry. If you’d like to help us Pay the radio bills. You can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. Lots of resources. They’re all free, but you can donate if you wish at thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 08 :
The Narrow Path is one feature of the teaching ministry of Steve Gregg. Steve’s philosophy of teaching is to educate, not indoctrinate his listeners. He believes that Christians should learn to think for themselves about the Bible and not be dependent on him or any other teacher for their convictions. We hope to teach Christians how to think, not what to think about the Bible.
SPEAKER 05 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. Our lines are full, so you can’t call through now if you’re not already on our switchboard. But if you take this number down, you can call later, and you might be able to get on. The number is 844-484-5737. And we’re going to talk next to Odell from Detroit, Michigan. Hi, Odell. Welcome.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yes, hello. Greetings again. I have a concept or a question like in the time of creation in Genesis and the word firmness. And we’re discussing it to me. It’s just would mention about. The vision between the entities of the water and what he did each day to break it apart for its function. But, uh, I was informed that it’s like that non penny training shield. That’s beyond the. Galaxy or the souls or the solar system.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, the word firmament, I realize lots of people wonder what the firmament is. It’s not a word that we generally use. But there are two views of this. One is the views that the unbelievers hold. They say that the second day of Genesis chapter 1, it says that God made a big dome over the earth. Now, what they’re arguing is that the earth was made flat and there’s a big dome over it. And, you know, the stars and the sun and the moon are, you know, either in this dome or, you know, some pagans who, I mean, unbelievers often say that this is kind of a pagan picture of the cosmos. They think that the stars are just pinpricks, in this dome that shines through the dome at night, and they argue that that’s what is meant by the firmament. Now, maybe pagans thought that way. The Bible certainly doesn’t argue for that. There’s no dome mentioned in the Bible, and I’m not sure why anyone would think that we should read one there. The word firmament… is a vague word. It has more than one meaning, but most translators believe that it should be translated expanse, that God put an expanse, that is some distance. Between what? Well, between the waters on the ground and the waters above the firmament. That would be waters that are up in the sky. Now, if it was believed that that there’s a big dome and that that’s the firmament, and the waters that are not on the ground are on the outside or above that firmament. I’m not sure how they’d be expected to get in if it’s a solid dome. It seems like the earth would be shielded from waters, if that were true. But if it’s simply referring to, as most scholars believe, an expanse, that would mean that there’s air between terrestrial waters, you know, in the ocean at that point. There was no land, actually, in those days, so That land was created on the next day after that. But there were seas on the surface of the earth, so the globe was covered with water. And then God suspended some of that water, evaporated it apparently, into clouds or some would say even a sort of a canopy of water vapor around the edge of the atmosphere. Now the atmosphere then is that expanse between the waters on the earth and the waters above that expanse. And it was the waters above the expanse that gave rain to the earth. Some people think it didn’t rain before the flood of Noah, but that’s not explicitly taught in the Bible. But even if it’s true, the flood of Noah would have taken waters from that water canopy or else from clouds, one or the other. We know there were clouds after the flood because there were rainbows. there was no mention of the rainbow before the flood. So some think the clouds were an innovation after the flood. And before that, it was just a big canopy of water around the atmosphere. But in any case, whether it’s clouds or a canopy of water vapor, they were above the firmament. So where are the clouds? Where is the water and the water vapor? It’s above us, but it’s not beyond a solid dome. So I’ve never had a problem with this passage. I’ve read it all my life, and I’ve taught on it. I’ve taught verse by verse through Genesis probably 30 times in my life, if not more. And it’s never occurred to me that there’s any reference to a dome here. It’s simply there was an expanse. God created distance. He separated between waters that were on the earth and waters that were going to be above this expanse, which the expanse would be what we call our atmosphere, or at least some distance above the earth. which is filled with air and atmosphere. So that’s what I understand the firmament to be. Now, if someone tells you the firmament really is talking about a solid dome, they’re making a lot of that up. And there’s a lot of non-Christians that have tried to make Christianity look stupid, and they usually try to interpret Genesis 1 as if it speaks of a flat earth with a big dome over it. And they read those things into it because there’s not a word in the Bible, not a teaching word. I mean, there’s poetry and stuff like that. We use poetry, too. We don’t use literal language in poetry, and neither did they in the Bible. But the Bible sometimes talks about the four corners of the earth or the pillars of the earth, things like that, in the poetic books, where it also talks poetically about everything else. But there’s no teaching in the Bible that the earth is flat, and there’s no teaching that there’s some kind of a dome over it. If somebody wants to read that into it, they’ve probably been influenced by the pagans themselves or by the atheists who think that Moses was influenced by the pagans. I’d rather just believe that the Bible is inspired by God and told the truth, and there’s no problem with it. It’s always been harmonious with scientific truth as far as I’m concerned. So that’s what I think the firmament is. I think it refers to the atmosphere. Thank you for your call. Anthony in New York, New York City. Hello, Anthony. Hi, Steve. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER 04 :
Hello? Can you hear me? Hello?
SPEAKER 05 :
If you can, take another caller.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. Hello, can you hear me, Steve?
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, stop speaking for a moment.
SPEAKER 04 :
Sorry, I thought you were off speaker. Can you hear me? Hello? Hello?
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, I’m going to have to take you off and talk to somebody who can hear me. You probably have one of the buttons on your phone pushed. I’m not sure which one, but I could hear you. Okay, let’s talk to Bill in Fullerton, California. Bill, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. My question is around Isaiah 65, 17. where it says, I create a new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered nor come to mind. And I’ve read some of the commentaries. Barnes was one who seems to think this is poetic language, and it sort of means the condition of God’s people will improve, and the former condition of God’s people as lost and sinners, etc., will not come to mind. What do you think it means?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, first of all, it’s not even questionable whether this is poetic language. It is poetic language. The entire section of Isaiah from chapter, where would we begin looking here? Certainly from the mid-50s or earlier through the end of the book is written in poetry. Almost all the prophets wrote in poetry. So it is poetry in poetic language, which means we have to be careful about not taking things too literally. Because, I mean, there’s just too much metaphor and hyperbole and so forth in poetry. But what it is actually referring to is disputed. When it says in verse 17, Behold, I create new heavens and new earth, many people think this is referring to the new heavens and new earth that Peter predicted in 2 Peter 3, and that is found in Revelation 21, verse 1. And if that’s the same, then we’re looking at the end of the world here, the end of the present world. And it says here, the former shall not be remembered nor come to mind. That’s what it says about the former heavens and earth. Now, I will say this, that the subject matter of this section of Isaiah, which is chapters 60 through 66, the last seven chapters of Isaiah, There’s a lot of New Covenant stuff there, a lot of stuff about the coming of the New Covenant. There’s actually a statement about the temple being burned down. There’s stuff that has given many people reason to think that when Isaiah speaks of a new heaven and new earth, he’s talking about a new covenant era, a new creation. Remember, Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5, If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation. And so some feel this is poetically, speaking of the New Covenant era, as a new creation. And the old creation, which has passed away and isn’t coming to mind anymore, won’t be remembered anymore, would be the Old Covenant. So it’s a very common thing for Christian commentators and others to see this as a prediction of the end of the Old Covenant era, including the burning of the temple on the one hand, and the coming of the new covenant area, and that the old covenant will be long past and won’t come to mind. That, to my mind, is a sensible way of looking at it. It’s not the only sensible way, because it’s also possible that it could be referring to the literal new heavens and new earth, which will come after this present creation reaches its end. And God will make a new heaven and a new earth.
SPEAKER 06 :
I think your explanation probably squares more with the Barnes commentary. It’s sort of on the same vein. And I would probably tend to lean that way as well. Although, like you say, it could mean either. But I’m tending to agree more with you and with the Barnes commentary. It makes more sense to me anyway.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, well, I tend to think about this passage that way too. Now, the main problem… with looking at it this way is that it then would give people the default notion that Revelation 21, which talks about the new heaven and new earth, is also simply talking about the coming of the new covenant, which is a little difficult because Revelation 21 logically follows Revelation 20. Now, in Revelation 20, Satan is bound for a thousand years. He’s released for a little while. Fire from heaven comes down out of heaven and destroys Satan and the nations of the earth. And there’s a final judgment and resurrection. But it also says he sees the heavens and the earth passing away. I think it’s verse 11. It says, I saw him who sat on the throne from whose face the heavens and the earth fled away because there’s no place for them. And then Revelation 21.1 says, I saw new heavens, new earth, and the old heaven and old earth had passed away. Now, in other words, here’s the, here’s, it connects. The chapter division is artificial. You see at the end of chapter 20, the heavens and the earth passing away from the face of him who sits on the throne. And then in chapter 21, you find, you know, the new heavens, the new earth, which seemed to be at the end of the thousand years. Now, I’ve mentioned earlier people who are called full preterists. They believe all prophecy has been fulfilled, and they believe that new heavens and earth and revelation have come, that it was when the Old Testament passed and the New Testament came. But the problem with that is you’ve got to deal with Satan being bound for a thousand years before any of that happens. Now, I don’t know. Pardon? Pardon?
SPEAKER 06 :
I was just saying, right, yeah, I understand.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right, so there’s got to be, I mean, you’ve got to make some sense of that thousand years of being bound, and then you’ve got a judgment, and then you’ve got the old heaven and earth passing away, and then you’ve got the new heavens and new earth. So there’s actually a future new heavens and new earth, unless that thousand years can reasonably be said to be fulfilled in the past, which there is no thousand-year period or not even any lengthy period. in the past that would fit the full preterist paradigm there. In fact, one of the very first people that’s considered a full preterist was completely full preterist except for that one thing. I’m talking about J. Stuart Russell. J. Stuart Russell, he believed all the prophecies of the second coming had fulfilled, but he couldn’t see it in Revelation 20. He said this has got to be the one passage that’s an exception. Now, I don’t think it’s the only passage that’s an exception. I think there’s more that are, but it’s interesting that he was inclined toward full preterism, but he had to admit, yeah, there’s no, there’s no reasonable way to make that thousand years represent, uh, you know, something that came to an end in 70 AD. Uh, so, so anyway, I, I, I agree with him on that. So here we go. We’ve got, we’ve got in the, uh, the theory in Isaiah 65, 17, that the new heaven and earth refers to the coming of the new covenant, which was in the first century. And I’m inclined to see that as a reasonable way of looking at it. Um, However, in Revelation, it’s extremely difficult to consistently see new heavens and earth that way there. But see, to my mind, it’s not problematic because in Hebrews it says that we who are Christians have tasted of the powers of the age to come. Now, if the age to come refers to the new heavens and the new earth, we have tasted of the powers of it. But it hasn’t come yet. And therefore, there’s a sense in which we already have slipped into the new creation. If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not a literal new creation, that we’ve got simply a foretaste of it. The taste of the powers of the age to come is in Hebrews chapter 6, in case you’re wondering. It’s verse 4 or 5, somewhere there. Anyway, so as I understand, the age to come will be a literal new heavens, new earth, as described in Revelation. But Christ has brought the powers of that age into reality in his church, in his people who are in the new covenant. So that’s sort of a spiritual foretaste of what will be a physical reality when Jesus comes back. That’s how I understand all these things.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, thank you, Steve. I know that was a long one, but it makes sense, and I’ll do some more research as well. Thanks for your time.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right. Thanks for your call. God bless. Okay, we’re going to talk next to Alyssa from Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Hi, Alyssa. How are you?
SPEAKER 11 :
I’m good. How are you?
SPEAKER 05 :
Good.
SPEAKER 11 :
My question comes from 1 Corinthians 15, verse 33 says, I’m wondering why you think Paul quotes a Greek from a Greek poet, and what does he mean by it? And is Paul agreeing that bad company corrupts good character?
SPEAKER 05 :
So you’re saying why do I think that he’s quoting a Greek poet? Well, because it’s a recognizable quote from a Greek poet. But you mean why do I think he did it?
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, I quote it, and do you think he was agreeing with that poet?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, well, the quotation is, evil company corrupts good habits. I’d say Paul is saying that that’s correct, and he’s quoting a Greek poet who said it very succinctly. Paul could have said it himself, but he had a well-known quote that the Corinthians, as Greeks, would be familiar with. to use. Paul, you know, the biblical writers didn’t refrain from quoting from or alluding to other books that were not inspired. For example, in the books of Kings and Chronicles, especially in Kings, we read, you know, the rest of the Acts of King so-and-so, are they not found in the Chronicles of the Kings of so-and-so? You know, I mean, That is to say, of Judah, let’s say. There’s lots of references to other books that the Bible mentions. The book of Jasher, for example. Jude refers to the book of Enoch by name. And it’s not uncommon for biblical writers to refer to and even quote poets and philosophers and historians and so forth simply as confirming to their audience that That, you know, this is, you know, the biblical author is not the first person to say such things. I mean, they should be familiar with some of these ideas from their own poets. For example, in Titus chapter 1 and verse 12, Paul quotes Epimenides from Crete, where he says in verse 12, one of them, meaning a Cretan, a prophet of their own said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. Now, that’s the quotation he quotes from Epimenides. And then he says, this testimony is true. So sometimes he’ll quote, you know, an external source and say, yeah, that’s true. I agree with that. I’m putting my endorsement on that statement. Not necessarily on the person that made it, but on the information in it. Preachers do that kind of thing all the time, by the way. I mean, preachers often illustrate their sermons from well-known sources. literature, and I think that our biblical writers did that too.
SPEAKER 11 :
Thank you, Steve.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, Alyssa, thanks for your call. Okay, let’s talk to Cheryl in Wheatland, California. Cheryl, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 12 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. I’m calling about in our church Bible study, we are going through Genesis. We had an interesting thing happen when we encounter Genesis 27, verse 39, that addresses Esau’s blessing. Some Bible versions seem to give very negative blessing when they use the term, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from the dew of heaven. While the version I had was saying, your dwelling shall all come from the fruitfulness and from the dew of the heavens above. It just seemed like a more positive slant. Maybe I don’t understand what they mean by away from.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, yeah. I mean, obviously the Hebrew is ambiguous there. Even the English is. I mean, if we’re looking at verse 28, we’re talking about Genesis 27, 28.
SPEAKER 1 :
39. 39.
SPEAKER 05 :
Oh, 39. Okay. Okay, 28 was talking to Jacob. Okay, so this is the one where he’s talking to Esau.
SPEAKER 09 :
Esau.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right, okay. Isaac says, Behold, your dwelling shall be of the fatness of the earth. Now, I have a note that I’ve written in my margins. Most English versions say away from the fatness of the earth, which includes the New American Standard, the NIV, the ESV, the New Living Translation, the Christian Standard Bible, and the New RSV. They all… They all make it, you know, your dwelling should be away from the fatness of the earth. So, of apparently is taken to mean from. And, of course, the word of can mean from. You know, but they think he’s saying away from. So, and I think maybe they base that on the general drift of the rest of the prophecy. Because he says, by your sword you shall live and you shall serve your brother. and it shall come to pass when you become restless, you shall break the oak from his neck. That is, you’re going to live by the sword, not necessarily from agriculture and from prosperity found that way. But I think it’s ambiguous enough that it could go either way, but I’m going to trust the Hebrew scholars, which is something I’m not, who translate all these other translations. They think it is sane, and they could be right. I’m not going to question them. because I don’t have the expertise in Hebrew to say, oh, these guys are wrong. I think they’re probably right because there is such a consensus about it. But how it actually reads in the Hebrew and how it could read alternatively, I’m not familiar with. But I’m going to go with the majority of Hebrew scholars only because I’ve got to go with one or the other. And I figured the majority probably have good reasons for what they do. We have to remember, too, I usually use the King James, I mean, I usually use the New King James, which says you’re dwelling of the fatness of the earth, which sounds good. But the King James and the New King James, they did use Old Testament manuscripts. that were, you know, different than what we thought. For example, the more recent translations have the advantage of the Dead Sea Scrolls reading, and it may be that that’s where the difference is found. I don’t know this to be so, but I do find that in many cases, my King James or New King James reads a certain way in the Old Testament, and virtually all the modern translators, you know, read it the other way, and they’re getting it from somewhere. And my guess is because they want to use the best manuscripts available of the Hebrew, they’re probably getting it from the Dead Sea Scrolls because that’s the oldest manuscripts we have. And those were not found when the King James was translated, so they didn’t have those.
SPEAKER 12 :
So was he getting a curse more than he was getting a blessing? No. Kind of.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah. I mean, the blessing had been given to Jacob and Esau insisted on getting something, too. And so, you know, Isaac gave him what was left. You know, he says, what’s left to give you? You know, I’ve given it all to your brother. And so anyway, the only blessing in this appears to be. that even though you, Esau, meaning the Edomites, will end up serving your brother, you’ll eventually break his yoke off your neck. That is, the Edomites will eventually break free from the Israelites. And that did happen. There was a rebellion against Israel by the Edomites, and they did get their independence for a little while before the Babylonian exile. But then they all went into exile, and Edom didn’t come back independent.
SPEAKER 12 :
Okay, then. Thank you, Steve.
SPEAKER 05 :
All righty. Okay. Thanks for calling. Bye now. Okay, Anthony in New York, New York. I think this is maybe the same Anthony who didn’t hear me when I was speaking to him before. Hello, Anthony. You there? Hi.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi. Hi. Go ahead. Quick question. So I have a friend who is a widower, and he was in some bad relationships, and he met a wonderful woman who was also in bad relationships. So he… He’s willing to get married again, but she is not. And there’s kind of talk that, you know, he would be willing to live together. And he’s telling me that, you know, he could get married on his deathbed and something like that. So, you know, it’s kind of a general marriage question, you know, with those circumstances. And go ahead. I’m going to be quiet now.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Well, I mean, why doesn’t she want to marry him? She has some bad experiences and… Okay, so she’s not willing to commit.
SPEAKER 03 :
I guess she thinks living together as if married or maybe getting into a domestic partnership, she thinks that that’s good enough, I guess.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, marriage is a commitment. If someone doesn’t want to marry, they don’t want to commit. Okay. I mean, they might say, yeah, well, I have bad experiences. Okay, that means you don’t want to commit now. Okay, let’s just put it as is. You want to live together unmarried means you want to not be committed. If you want to be committed, you’ll have no objection to being married. So it seems to me that he’s ready to commit and she’s not. So if they live together, they’re living in fornication. Marriage requires two people who both want to commit. And outside of marriage… sexual relations are not to be taking place. So he either needs to convince her to commit to marriage or find someone who’s willing to commit to marriage or stay single. Those are kind of the options for him. All right, I’m out of time. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. And we’ll be on again tomorrow, Lord willing. Hope to talk to you then. God bless.
