Menu
Join Steve Gregg as he delves into the complex topic of inclusivism versus exclusivism in Christianity. Listener Sean from Vallejo, California, calls in to discuss a pastor’s take on inclusivism, prompting Steve to explore different interpretations of salvation and the role of Christ. This episode also features an insightful discussion on personal spiritual struggles, shared by a caller curious about Steve’s own journey. Experience a thought-provoking conversation that challenges common assumptions and encourages deeper reflection on faith.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon as we are today. Taking your calls, that’s why we have the program live, is so that we can interact in real time. You can call in on the program. Unless you are listening to one of the occasional, you know, some of the stations run the program later rather than live, but I’d say 90-some-odd percent of the stations we’re on carry the program live, and it’s probable that you are listening to the live program. The number to call is 844-484-5737 if you would like to ask a question about the Bible or the Christian faith or or express a difference of opinion you have with the host, feel free to call this number. We’ll try to get you on the switchboard in time to get through all the calls in this hour. The number is 844. 484-5737. And just a reminder that if you live in Washington State, especially western Washington, I’ll be in the Seattle area roughly, speaking in various places for the first four evenings of next week. That is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights. I am speaking in various places in the general Seattle area. If you live in that area and are interested in those meetings, you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com, and you can look up under announcements, and there you’ll find the places, the times, and so forth of the meetings that I’ll be doing in the Seattle area next week, starting Monday night. All right. We’re going to go to the phones and talk to Sean in Vallejo, California. Sean, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, thanks, Steve. How are you today?
SPEAKER 03 :
Good, thanks.
SPEAKER 09 :
Good. Now, I just had a question. I was listening to a pretty well-known pastor. He did a podcast where he basically shared the position, the viewpoints of inclusive versus exclusive. And I’ve never heard that term before, but he came out that, you know, he was an inclusive pastor. that he felt like Jesus was the way for him, but he wasn’t sure if Jesus was the only way. And so I had never heard that term before, and I just wanted to kind of pick your brain and see what you thought about that, because I’ve never heard it before.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I’ll tell you, when people use the word inclusivist and exclusivist in that connection, What they’re referring to is whether salvation will be only experienced by those who have heard and responded to the gospel in this life. And if they have, if their response is a positive one, they will be included, but everybody else is excluded. So the exclusivist view is that nobody will be saved except those who have heard and received the gospel. and that is a position that many evangelicals take for granted. They assume it’s taught in the New Testament, and therefore it is a position that I’m well aware of. I grew up with that basic mentality. Now, the inclusivists, they’re not all the same, but in general, the word inclusive refers to that God will include in salvation, some who have not heard the gospel in their lifetime. Now, the pastor, you just described his views. I don’t know who it is, but I wouldn’t agree that Jesus is not the only way. Jesus is the only way. And there are evangelicals who are, in that sense, inclusivists, but they believe that Jesus is the only way, but that not everyone will hear about him, and not everyone will have the same opportunity that we have, who have heard of him, to live with him and serve him and so forth, because we don’t know, we’ve never heard the gospel, or they’ve never heard the gospel. And yet, some of those people are such as would have received him if they had heard him, and it’s just, as it were, an accident, a birth that they lived and died in someplace where they never heard the gospel. And yet some of them, not all of them certainly, would be people who would have received him because their hearts are seeking God and they are responsive to the light that they have, although they don’t have as much light as they would have if they heard the gospel. But because whatever light they have, they have been receptive to it, this is an indicator that they would be receptive of Christ. And therefore, even if they die without hearing about him, if they have sought God and sought to be faithful to the life they have, that they would be recognized as basically the same kind of people as the ones who do receive the gospel. It’s just that the former have never heard it. In that case, some say Jesus will save them too. He will count them to be among those that he died for. That is to say, no one will be saved apart from Christ. But some, they say, might be saved without having heard of Christ. It’d still be Christ who saves them because there is salvation outside of Christ nowhere. You can’t be saved without Christ. Only Christ saves. But the question is, does he only save those who hear the gospel and receive it in this lifetime? Or is he also willing to save those who, having not heard or understood the gospel… have nonetheless followed the light that God gave them the best they knew how. And that it’s through no fault of their own that they never hurt. But that, you know, Christ died for all. Christ desires all to be saved and none to perish. And therefore, the only people that would not be saved are those that Christ says, no, you’re my enemies. There’s no way I can include you in my family. But that there would be people who, because of the circumstances of their birth, never heard the gospel. but whom he would not see as his enemies because without knowing the gospel, they’re doing what they can to discover and follow God. Now, some people say, well, some of these people would be Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and animists and other kinds of people of other religions and Jews and so forth. Are you saying that these other religions can save people? Absolutely not. No, no religion can save anyone. Even the Christian religion won’t save anyone. Only Jesus saves. Jesus is the Savior. Religion is not. And so I think there are people who could be saved by Christ regardless of whatever religion they have heard and known or been persuaded of. You know, Christ can overlook that. For example, there’s 40,000 denominations, they say, in the Christian faith. Well, a lot of those have got to be wrong, and yet we… We’re not prepared to say that because Presbyterians and Methodists and Pentecostals have three very different outlooks on some major theological points that some of them are not saved. Because we recognize that you don’t have to be right about everything to be saved. What does have to be right? Your heart has to be right toward God. Your heart has to be right toward Christ. And there are some who would say that. that those who have died without Christ, but who are the type who would have received him if they had heard, well, when they see him, they’ll receive him then. They’ll understand better, and they’ll say, well, you know, I would gladly have followed you if I’d known about it. And these are not the kind of people that Jesus would regard as his enemies. Why should he? And so some inclusivists take that approach, namely that some people will be saved by Christ who have not had occasion to hear or understand the gospel, Now, I’m not affirming this, but it certainly retains the affirmation that only Christ saves, that there is no salvation apart from Christ. And the pastor you mentioned, if he said, well, you know, Jesus is the way for me, but he may not be the only way. Well, I certainly wouldn’t agree with that. I think Jesus is the only way. But we just don’t know how much knowledge of him, how much awareness of him a person has to have in this life in order for him to be the way of salvation for them. If he died for all people, but not all people hear about him, then it raises questions. You know, how will he recover those who never heard about him for whom he died and whom he purchased? And so, I mean, that’s one kind of inclusivist. Now, the pastor you mentioned, is a different kind of inclusiveness, it sounds like. Now, I don’t know exactly who he is or if I picked his brain, if I would be, if I’d see him differently. But I, just from what you’ve told me, if he says, well, Jesus is the way for me, but something else might be the way for someone else. I certainly disagree with that. I mean, this is the kind of universalist who believes that, you know, all ways are equally good. and that, you know, all people, all roads lead to the same destination and so forth. That is not true. All roads do not lead to the same destination. There are two paths. There’s a narrow path that leads to eternal life, and few there be that find it. And there’s the broad path that leads to destruction, and most people are on that. Now, we usually assume that those on the narrow path are those who specifically have heard of Christ, have received him, and have, you know, followed him or received the gospel, and that may be a correct way of seeing it. Or it may be that God knows what we do not, that there are those who are pursuing that narrow gate without much knowledge, without having heard what we’ve heard, and that they are, you know, they’re on the path. They may not even realize they’re on the path, but the light that God has given them is what they’re following him. And so they really are on the same path. I don’t know. But it’s a very different thing to say everybody’s on the same path. That is not true. There are two paths, not one. And one leads to destruction. People who reject the light, people who reject Christ, certainly are not on the path and not included. So, you know, two kinds of inclusives. The second kind are what I would usually call liberal inclusives. or maybe simply New Age people, who just say it doesn’t matter what you believe or what you do, everyone’s going to get to heaven one way or another, and Jesus is not consequential in the matter for most of them. I would totally disagree. Now, C.S. Lewis, for example, was an inclusive. Many Christians are. Clark Pinnock, an evangelical theologian that I greatly admired, Help this view also. And there are others. And that is that only Jesus saves. But there may be some people who are saved by him without having known enough about him to be called, you know, Christians in this life. but they would have been if they had known. And God knows that about them. And Jesus wants them. He died for them. He purchased them. So there’s no reason why he would have to reject them. So anyway, those are some thoughts. So some people who call themselves inclusivists are simply saying all roads lead to God. It doesn’t really matter what you do. That would be a very liberal, new-agey kind of a view, right? there are liberal theologians who have said that kind of thing. I disagree with that. I don’t think the Bible supports that. But the idea that Jesus is the only way to God, Jesus is the only Savior for those who seek God, who believe that God exists, that he’s rewarded those who diligently seek him, it says in Hebrews. You know, that he gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. I mean, they’re Certainly not all humble people are Christians, and unfortunately not all Christians are humble either. But the point here is we don’t know everything that God knows about this. We know that God wants all people to hear the gospel and to follow Jesus. Now, some of you might say, well, what if people who’ve never heard the gospel could possibly get to heaven too because of this inclusiveness idea? Well, whether that’s possible or not is irrelevant to our duty. we still are obligated to live up to the light we have. If we know the gospel, that’s what we have to live up to. And, you know, a person who has more light than they’re willing to live up to isn’t following Christ at all, isn’t the kind of person we’re talking about here. So, anyway, that’s – C.S. Lewis took that position. A number of evangelicals have taken that position. But – It sounds like they’re saying that Jesus isn’t the only way, but what they’re really saying is Jesus is the only way, but that there’s maybe more than one way for Jesus to deal with different people in different circumstances and different degrees of awareness of his gospel. But the guy you quoted, the way he put it, it sounds like he believes it doesn’t really matter that Jesus isn’t the only Savior, that other ways you can be saved and He’s just my savior for me. You know, maybe Buddha is the savior of the Buddhists or something. I would certainly disagree with that.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah. All right.
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, Sean, I’m sorry. My finger was on the button to go to the next caller, and you started talking. I did not mean to interrupt you. Yose is from Knoxville, Tennessee. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey Steve, thank you. I have a quick question from a guy called a few weeks ago about his struggle with pornography in his marriage and I know you mentioned that you didn’t have the same struggle in your walk.
SPEAKER 03 :
I’ve been blessed not to have that struggle, yes.
SPEAKER 06 :
So my question slash curiosity to you would be if I guess right now, if you’re struggling with anything and if not, if nothing major, then if you could share in your life like something, a prominent struggle or a prominent sin in your life that you have been delivered from.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, honestly, I mean – First of all, if I had any scandalous in my life, it’d be a rather personal matter. I’d probably be sooner going to confess it to somebody I see myself as accountable to rather than to a generic worldwide radio audience. But I’m telling you the truth. I don’t know of any sin. That I’m struggling with right now, not that we don’t succumb to temptation from time to time on one thing or another. I mean, James said in many things, we all stumble. But in terms of some kind of prevailing sin, that’s a regular, you know, a regular nemesis that really, you know, I’ve been struggling with it and I just can’t get over it. You know, I wouldn’t say there’s anything like that in my life at this point. I think there have been things like earlier when I was a younger person, much younger, I actually struggled with anger. But as I recall, when I got baptized in spirit when I was 16, I just didn’t get angry anymore. I mean, that was my experience. Not everyone has that experience. But, you know, I just didn’t get angry anymore. I just loved people and was sympathetic toward people who were annoying and things like that. So That was just a work of God that he did. Of course, as a youth, I would have the normal struggles people have with temptation toward lust. I would have pride issues. But see, I never thought those were okay, and I never nurtured them, which means that they never got a big grip on me. I was very sensitized to pride when I was younger. I knew from before I started in the ministry. that God resists the proud, and that God gives grace to the humble, and that being proud is about the least desirable thing to do, standing in the presence of God day by day. And so I knew that God finds pride offensive. And so I’m saying I had the same kind of pride or the temptations to pride that any young man has, but I really was determined to fight that and to not affirm it and so forth. I probably still have some temptations toward that. I’m not saying I don’t. I’m just not aware of that struggle anymore. I personally don’t care what people think about me. It’s kind of that kind of thing. When people say good things about me, I think, well, maybe that’s true. Maybe if they knew me better, they wouldn’t say such good things about me. I know better than they do whether I’m commendable or not. And I don’t really give myself much credit or whatever good is there. I truly honestly think, well, that’s just the grace of God. I see people who do have those problems. I think, well, but for the grace of God, that would be me too. But you see, I’ve been walking with God for 72 years, and I believe that walking with God is supposed to be a transformative experience. It says in 2 Corinthians 3, in verse 18, that we all with unveiled faces, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, we are being changed from glory to glory into the same image as Christ’s image by the Spirit of God. Now, anyone who’s walked with God for a decade and has not seen any change in their life to be more like Christ than they were when they started, perhaps is not living a normal Christian life. And I’m not sure why they wouldn’t. Maybe they haven’t heard. But see, I’ve been doing this for 72 years. I haven’t become a perfect person. And I seriously doubt that I will be a perfect person in this lifetime. But if I hadn’t overcome a great deal of my childhood problems or youthful problems, I’d have to wonder about my salvation, you know. The truth is that I was very mindful in my younger years. of struggles with some areas that I was determined to not succumb to. And for the most part, I have to say those battles have been won. Not that there aren’t challenges that might occur any moment, even right now, you know. So, you know, I don’t claim any perfection, but if you’re asking, is there some kind of besetting sin, some addictive thing that I’m really wrestling with, I can say, thankfully to God, that for many years, you know, I would say my sinning is very anecdotal. You know, it’s like, Stumbling when you’re walking, how often does that happen? It happens once in a while, but it just doesn’t describe the way you walk. And so I honestly believe that when the prodigal son came home, his life after that was not considered to be going back to the far country and eating with the pigs again and then coming back to his father again on and off every day or every week. I think that when he came home to his father, he remained obedient, and that’s what conversion is. And so when you’re really following Christ, your life is characterized by obedience with occasional stumbles. And frankly, the more you wage the warfare, the more you focus on being devoted to Christ, the more you have made a habit 24-7 to be obedient to him. frankly, it frankly gets easier. There are things that it becomes, as it were, second nature, maybe first nature, to be victorious. But I want to be careful not to say anything that would give the impression that I see myself as invulnerable to sin. All I can say is I’m not aware of doing many sins these days, partly because I’m You meditate day and night on the Word of God, like the Bible says. You’re committed totally to obedience to God, like the Bible says. With that, you form habits and also develop character. Yeah, I’m going to just say I don’t know of anything. I certainly am not aware of intense struggles against any particular sin. What I am aware of is that in a weak moment or a foolish moment, I may succumb to a temptation that isn’t very common or regular for me, but But then you repent. And repenting, of course, means that you decide you’re not going to do that anymore. Or at least you’re going to shore up your resistance so it doesn’t happen as often. So I don’t know. I’m not a perfect man, but I’d like to testify from that. Because when I was a Baptist, I grew up a Baptist. I was told that we all sin many times in thought, word, and deed every day. I mean, that was considered to be normal Christianity, is that we all sin many times a day in thought, word, and deed. And I was conditioned as a youth to believe that if you thought for a moment that you hadn’t sinned in the last hour, that you were arrogant and that you’re guilty of spiritual pride. And that, of course, is a sin in itself. So, You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t. You know, if you say, I haven’t sinned today, then, of course, you’re guilty of pride. And if you say, I have sinned today, well, then you’re guilty of whatever sin you did sin. But the Bible does not tell us that we have to sin. It tells us we have to not sin. John wrote in 1 John 2, 1, he says, My little children, these things I write unto you so that you don’t sin. He said, if anyone does, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he’s the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. So, basically, John says, I’m writing this so you won’t sin. Now, sometimes you might. If you do, you’ve got Christ’s propitiation, but I’m assuming you’re not going to. And, of course, several times John says in that epistle, Those who are born of God, they don’t live in sin. They don’t commit sin. They don’t practice sin. And the more you walk with Christ, the more you walk in the Spirit, the more that is true. So, anyway, I’m not going to try to compare myself with anyone else. If I compared myself with what I was when I was younger… I might say, thank God, I’m not wrestling with all the same things I was when I was a younger man. But there are no doubt people who have advanced beyond where I am in holiness. There’s a continuum there. Your life from the time of conversion until the time Jesus takes you is a continuum of increasing in holiness from glory to glory into the image of Christ. And frankly, I can imagine things I would be weak to if the temptation came upon me like torture, for example. You know, that’d be a struggle for me if I was being tortured and someone saying, deny Christ. I would not find that an easy test, but hopefully I’d be faithful. But the truth is, I can imagine things where I would fail the test. But the life I’m living at the moment, is not presenting as many such challenges as it once was. So that was a deeply personal question, so I just gave a deeply personal answer. But, again, I know there’s a lot of younger Christians out there that probably say, wow, I’m discouraged because I really am struggling with this or that problem, and Steve doesn’t. Well… I’ve had my issues. Things come up. But I would also like to say, perhaps as an encouragement to those who are struggling with those things, there is such a thing as growing. There is such a thing as maturing. There is such a thing as sanctifying oneself. And not oneself. God does the same thing. We are laborers together with God in that. Paul, at the end of 1 Thessalonians, gives a long list of things that we must do followed by him saying, and the Lord will sanctify you wholly. That is, as you do those things he mentions at the end of 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. 5, excuse me. Anyway, I need to take a break. I hope that’s edifying and not discouraging. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes, sir. Thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, brother. We have another half hour coming up. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. We are a listener supporter. If you want to go there, you can donate there if you wish. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. We’ll take another half hour of calls.
SPEAKER 02 :
Tell your family, tell your friends, tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to sell you but everything to give you. And that’s The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. When today’s radio show is over, go to your social media and send a link to thenarrowpath.com where everyone can find free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. And tell them to listen live right here on the radio. Thank you for sharing listener-supported The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour, taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we’d be glad to talk to you about those things. If you disagree with the host, I’d be glad to talk to you about that, too. The number to call is 844-484-5737. Looks like our lines might have just filled up, so if you call at this moment, you’ll probably get a busy signal. But if you want to try a little later, lines will be opening up. 844-484-5737. All right, our next caller is Tony from North Webster, Indiana. Hi, Tony, welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, hi, Steve. Question for you, 2 Kings 2.23. That’s the Elisha and the she-bears with the accosted by, well, it says boys, but probably young men. Right, men. It’s in the Bible for a reason. I always believe that. And I believe that our, you know, the fathers, the reason they wrote those words for some, you know, whether it’s an actual situation or it’s a, you know, it’s a metaphor for something. I wonder what your take was on it. And I just noticed before I called you that the NIV Bible says two bears, but the Other translations say she bears, and I’m thinking maybe at least there’s something there that the she bears or the female bears would probably have more of a bearing than just two bears. But anyway, I wonder what your take was on it, and is there something metaphorical, is there something we can take out of it for today that would be out of that? And what, you know, contextually… was happening in that situation.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right. Yeah, well, I don’t think there’s anything esoteric in it. I take the story as a plain narrative of something that actually happened. You have to realize, of course, that Elijah had been the mentor of Elisha for probably some years at this time. And Elisha was taken up into heaven in a whirlwind just before this. And before he went up, Elijah asked Elisha, is there anything you want from me? And Elisha said, well, I’d like to have a double portion of your spirit. And Elijah said, well, I can’t tell you if that will happen or not, but if you see me when I go up, then your request be granted. If you don’t, then not. And it turns out that Elisha did see Elijah go up just in the previous chapter, or actually earlier in the same chapter. And so this double portion of the spirit came upon Elisha. And just as Elisha had struck Elisha, I assume Elijah had struck the river to cross over it before he was taken up. Elisha, now having the mantle of Elijah, was able to strike the river, and it parted for him to go through. So it’s very clear that the power… And anointing that was on Elijah was now on Elisha. He was, in other words, his successor. Now, Elijah had been the predominant spokesman for Yahweh, for God, during his lifetime. He had confronted Jezebel and Ahaz. And he was living at a time when the whole nation of Israel was worshiping Baal, with a few exceptions. God told him there were like 7,000 people. in a population of millions, about 7,000 who didn’t worship Baal, but the rest did. Now, that would mean that these young men that we’re talking about probably were Baal worshippers too. They certainly weren’t acting like Yahweh worshippers. Now, the law under which Israel was founded said that the penalty for idolatry was death. It was a capital crime to worship other gods. Now, basically everybody in Israel was doing it. although they weren’t all being put to death because the law was not being enforced. But that didn’t mean that God couldn’t enforce it, if you wish. And as Elisha… was going through a certain town, Bethel. It says in verse 43, as he went up from there to Bethel, and as he was going up the road, some youths, I think it does say in the King James, it may say children or boys or something like that. But the word youths, the Hebrew word here, is the same word that was used describing Joseph when he was 17 years old. So it doesn’t mean a child. It just means a young man. It says some youths. They came from the city and mocked him. Now, he was minding his own business. They didn’t just see him walk into their town and start mocking him. They came out from the city specifically to mock him. They no doubt were aware that he was considered to be the spokesman for Yahweh. And they were idolaters, like most people in Israel, worshipping Baal. And they just mocked him. They said, go up bald head, go up bald head, which of course assumes he was bald, which is fine. There’s nothing wrong with being bald, but something about his appearance. Maybe they were mocking him because he seemed aged to them. And young people sometimes mock old people, but That’s a particularly wrong attitude, even if it wasn’t a matter of him being God’s person. But the point here is he turned around and looked at them and pronounced a curse on them in the name of Yahweh. And then he went his way. And that’s all that happened. But then it tells us that two female bears, and this may have happened instantly or this may have happened sometime in the next weeks, but when it happened, they realized this was no doubt connected with the fact that they had come under the curse of Yahweh. It says two female bears came out and mauled 42 of the youths. Then went out from there, he went out from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria. So these young idolaters came out to mock the prophet of God, unprovoked, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord, and rightly so. I mean, although Jesus says, bless those who curse you, this was not a situation where they were cursing him. They were mocking him as God’s man, when in fact he was the only one faithful to the God of Israel, and they were not. So he just pronounced the curse on them. The law itself pronounced the curse on any Israelites who worshipped idols. So he was only affirming what the law itself, that they were under, said they were cursed. Now, he went his way. We don’t read that he called down two bears and said, may the Lord send two bears to rip up 42 of you. He just cursed them and left. And as a consequence, and again, some people may think that this happened immediately, and maybe it did, or maybe it happened in the next week or so, and they remembered, oh, he had cursed us. That’s probably what caused this. We’re just told that two bears came down, two she-bears. Now, you ask if there’s any significance in there being she-bears. Probably not. Of course, a she-bear is, what should we say, proverbial dangerous to be around if they have cubs. But we aren’t told there are any cubs there. So I don’t know that them being she-bears or he-bears would have made a difference. I think the reason it says she-bears is because in Hebrew there’s one word bear in the feminine and one word in the masculine, I suppose. And so it’s just to render the Hebrew correctly, the word for a a female bear. So, I mean, that was no doubt a judgment that came upon them for their idolatry and for their irreverence that they showed. But they would have been worthy of it at any time because they were idolaters and there was a standing death penalty on all idolaters. It had never been enforced in their time. So this was God carrying out the death penalty on these people. Also, of course, vindicating his man. Elisha, like Elijah before, was living at a time when true prophets of God had to run for their lives because the king and queen were trying to kill them all. And, you know, they were under open persecution. And these guys were taking the side of the anti-prophet people, you know, and mocking the prophets. And God, a lot of times, would use miraculous events or things like this to vindicate his spokesman among their critics. And so these 42 youths were mauled. Now, did they die? Maybe. Maybe some of them did, some of them didn’t. We’re not told. It’s interesting. It doesn’t say the bears came down and killed them. It could say it that way, but it says they mauled them. You can be mauled by a bear and be maimed for the rest of your life or just be wounded and bleeding. We don’t know if any of these young men died from these wounds. Maybe they did. It wouldn’t make much difference. They’re dead now. They’d be dead by something by now. But the point here is it’s not got esoteric meaning, I don’t think. It’s just that it’s a case of God, I think, vindicating his prophet in a society where the whole nation was against the prophets. And God’s saying, be careful what you say about my guys. So that’s the meaning I see in it. If there’s deeper meanings, it’s not obvious. Hey, I appreciate your call. Charles in Indianapolis, Indiana. Welcome to The Narrow Path. How are you doing?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes. Hi, Steve. Thank God for your show. I try to listen to it every day. So I’m appreciative of you. So I do have a question. It’s in Romans 8 and 26. And it talks about, likewise, the Spirit helps our infirmities. Are you familiar with that scripture? I’m sure you are. Okay. But I hear sometimes people reference speaking in tongues, and then they’ll point this scripture out to me. And they’ll say, well, see, that’s talking about speaking in tongues. But to me, it says, but the Spirit itself makes intercessions with groanings that cannot be uttered. So I’m thinking…
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s not, what do you think about as far as that being speaking in tongues? Well, I’m with you. I’m with you. I was always taught this as a corollary to the subject of speaking in tongues. Because people always wonder, if you don’t understand what you’re saying when you’re speaking in tongues, what’s the point of it? Now, whatever the point of it is, We may not be told. We’re told in 1 Corinthians 14 that those who speak in tongues speak mysteries, and they pray, and they thank God well, and they bless God well. All those things are stated in 1 Corinthians 14. But it’s tempting to go to Romans 8.26 and say, well, here’s something. Here’s something where it says we don’t always know what to pray for as we ought to, but the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered. Now, if cannot be uttered means we don’t have the words in our language to express it, then this might mean that the Holy Spirit gives us words that are not in our language to express it. We do know. that Paul describes speaking in tongues as praying in tongues. He doesn’t explain some of the things we’d like to know, but we know it’s a praying thing. And now he’s saying, well, there’s times when we pray, we’re not sure what we should say, and we can’t actually utter it, which could mean we just don’t have the words in our vocabulary to know how to say it, or we’re not sure what. what words are appropriate, and therefore the Holy Spirit then makes intercession through us in groans and so forth. Now, the fact that he says groans instead of words makes me think that Paul may not be thinking about speaking in tongues here because he could easily have said the Holy Spirit intercedes for us in words that are beyond our capacity to utter. That would make me think he’s talking about tongues. But instead he’s talking about groans. And earlier he has mentioned us groaning also, or thereabouts, because he says that we, if you look back a little bit here, it says in verse 22 and 23, for we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now, And not only they, but we also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. Now, what I hear Paul saying is that the creation… pretty much has been disordered as a result of the fall, and it’s as if it were groaning, looking forward to its being renovated and restored. And we, too, we who have the first fruits of the Spirit, we who are Christians, we also have this groaning going on as we look forward to the resurrection. Now, this groaning he talks about here may be talking about the groaning we have just because we’re frustrated by God you know, the sins that so easily beset us, or we may be groaning like Lot, who, of course, we’re told, Peter tells us that Lot vexed his righteous soul day after day in Sodom, being vexed by their unlawful deeds. He was, as it were, groaning in his spirit probably over that. So when he says we groan looking for the end, for the resurrection, he may be saying we’re groaning because of the afflictions we have, because of the sins that torment us, or because of the culture that we’re so out of step with because we’re following God and the culture is full of sin. But he does speak about our experience as Christians. including groaning. It’s not the only thing we do, but sometimes we do groan over some of these things. And then, of course, he says in verse 26, Likewise, the Spirit also helps our weaknesses, for we do not know what we should pray for as well, but the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now, I don’t think he is speaking of tongues specifically, but of groanings. I think what he’s saying is we typically groan at times when we really don’t even know how to frame things. what we’re groaning about. Sometimes we just look at the world and we just groan in frustration or sadness or anger. We don’t know even what to ask for. And yet the Holy Spirit interprets those groans. He understands exactly why we’re groaning, and he translates those groans into prayers according to the will of God. Now, I would say this, it could also apply to tongues in a secondary sense. I think if Paul had tongues in mind specifically, he would have worded it probably differently. But the fact that he might not have been thinking specifically of tongues doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t have seen speaking in tongues in a similar light. That is, there’s times we just don’t know what to pray for. And it’s not that we’re groaning so much as we’re praying in language we don’t know that the Holy Spirit is giving. So, you know, when people say, well, this verse is talking about speaking in tongues, I think it’s not. I don’t think it is directly. But in principle, it may be describing something that would be also applicable to speaking in tongues.
SPEAKER 08 :
Oh, okay. Oh, thanks a lot. That really helps out.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, Charles. Good talking to you, man. You too.
SPEAKER 08 :
You have a good one. God bless you, too. Bye-bye now.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, let’s talk to Rick in Vancouver, Washington. Hi, Rick. Welcome.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hello, Steve. Hey. My question is, there’s no really Bible verse that addresses this. I believe you would know better about it. In the lack of information about the Ark of the Covenant, from its location, how… Was it actually in the temple in Jesus day a minor saying that it isn’t I don’t know what was it? How did they actually fulfill God’s command in the offerings if it wasn’t there if the fact wasn’t there?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, of course the Ark of the Covenant in the temple was only relevant to one of their days the day of atonement That’s the only time anyone actually went into the Holy of Holies where the Ark was the temple sacrifices on a daily basis were made in out in the outer court on the bronze altar. And that was available. They did have that in the days of Jesus. And they also burned incense on the golden altar in the holy place. But the Holy of Holies, another compartment, is where the Ark was supposed to be and where it was in the days of Moses. Now, when the Temple of Solomon was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, it would appear that the Ark was, frankly disappeared from, no one knows its whereabouts. There is a tradition that the Jews have that Jeremiah rescued the Ark from the temple before it was burned down, and that he, and no doubt some others helping him carry it, took it away into Egypt. And then he died down there, and it hasn’t been seen since. Now, obviously, there’s theories about where it is. There’s actually a Coptic church in Ethiopia that has for many centuries claimed that they have the Ark of the Covenant, but it’s too holy for anyone to look at, so no one can check. It’s a windowless building that’s guarded with armed guards in Ethiopia. They claim the Ark is in there, but no one can go check to see if it is. Obviously… Ron Wyatt made the, to my mind, the ridiculous claim that he had found the Ark of the Covenant in a cave in Jerusalem under Calvary Mountain. I personally don’t give any weight to that. But the point is, the Ark does not seem to have ever reappeared after the destruction of Solomon’s Temple. There are vast reliefs. of the Babylonians carrying away implements from the Jewish temple, including the seven-branched menorah, the lampstand. You can see these in bas-reliefs, but they don’t have any pictures of the ark being taken. And that has led many scholars to believe the ark was not taken into Babylon. But it would have been because it was made of gold and stuff. It was actually a valuable artifact. And the Babylonians certainly would have taken it if they found it. And that’s why the Jews have this tradition that maybe Jeremiah rescued it and took it away before anyone else could get their hands on it. And that may be true. I don’t know if it’s true or not. No one knows if it’s true. But when Zerubbabel came back from Babylon and rebuilt the temple, we could be pretty sure he didn’t have the Ark of the Covenant. which you asked, well, then how could they do the ceremonies that are required? They just had to do them without it, I suppose, unless they made, you know, a replica. I mean, I don’t suppose anything would have prevented them from being able to make, you know, a replica of the Ark and putting that in the Holy of Holies, but I don’t know that they did. They may have simply just gotten by without it. Okay. I don’t think we have any real information about that. But you see, where the ark went is of no concern to us. You know, it may be in a warehouse in Washington, D.C., among a bunch of boxes and stuff like that, that nobody knows where it is. But the thing is that Jeremiah predicted a day would come when the ark was irrelevant, and we live in that day. Correct. Yeah.
SPEAKER 10 :
Can you address one more thing as I hang up, if you don’t mind? It’s just a day he thinks. And if you have time, in Exodus 6, like 16 through 20, it gives the years of Levi’s son, grandson, and great-grandson would be Moses’ dad. And the years, if you add all those up, it’s not 420. So I was just wondering when you start the dating of 420 years.
SPEAKER 03 :
That would be 430 is what you’re thinking of, yeah. Or whatever, the number of people that… You get two different voices in prophecy about that. There’s reference to Israelites being in Egypt for 430 years, and other times it just speaks about 400 years. Yeah, like to the dead. Right, and so this has been calculated various ways. Some people think that the 430 years actually refers to the first time Abraham and Pharaoh went down into Egypt. When she was taken into captivity by Pharaoh briefly, that that would be the beginning of the 430 years. Although it was another 215 years before they actually went down to Egypt as a race and became slaves there. So you could cut the 430 years in half. I mean, it would just happen to be in half because looking at the age of Jacob… when he went into Egypt and so forth, and you do the calculations from that to Moses, it would appear that they were really only enslaved by Pharaoh in Egypt as a nation or as a people for 215 years. Yeah, that’s what I thought. Yeah, the previous 250 years would date back to the first time that Abram and Sarah went down into Egypt, and she was taken into Pharaoh’s harem, you know, as it were, against her will. So it’s the beginning of the captivity in Egypt. But they weren’t steadily in Egypt the whole time. There are people who think that’s how to understand. I think they may be right.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah. Anyways, I thank you very much for your time, and God bless you, my friend.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, Rick. Good talking to you, man. Thanks for your call. Okay. Our next caller is Pam in Atlanta, Georgia. Hi, Pam. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, Steve. This is Pamela. Hey, Steve. I know I’m not going to take much of your time, but I just want to let you know that I appreciate your narrow path, your Q&As, and I just want to let you know that I thank you for clarifying all of the speaking in tongues and speaking the baptism of the holy spirit and i i really do hope that all of your your listeners really take heed to that because you are telling the truth you all you are on target and that’s for many of us that that are in christ with you and thank you for being my brother and i thank god for you uh i really do i thank you thank you pamela it’s great to hear from you god bless you god bless you bye bye now well humphrey in oakland california you may be our last one today let’s see go ahead
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, I want to know more about the four kingdoms that was described in the book of Daniel, especially that the fourth beast with ten horns and a little horn. You know, there are different interpretations to that. Some Greek camp said that the last beast is the… Greek and the Roman campsite is the Roman. I want to know, like, that this little horn, is it actually reflecting Antiochus IV or Titus in the Roman time? So I’m really confused.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, sure, and there’s reason to be confused because there are two different views. Daniel saw four beasts come out of the sea, and out of the fourth beast came a little horn that is prominent in the prophecy. And the first beast, everyone agrees, was Babylon, the lion. And then the disagreement comes about the other three, because it’s generally assumed, and the early church fathers assumed also, that the second beast was the Medo-Persian Empire. That’s the combination of the Medes and the Persians who conquered Babylon. And then the third beast would be those who conquered the Medo-Persian Empire, and that’s the Greeks under Alexander the Great. And the fourth beast would be Rome, and the little horn that grows out of it would come out of Rome, out of the Roman Empire. And many of the, well, the reformers, for example, believed… That was the right identification, and they actually saw the little horn as the papacy, the papal institution, the popes. Now, there’s another view, and that is that it departs when you get to the second beast, because all agree that Babylon is the first beast. Some say that the second beast, which is a bear, is simply Babylon. And then the third beast is Persia. Because Media and Persia existed as separate empires, but they didn’t conquer Babylon as separate. They were combined before they conquered Babylon. So I don’t accept this explanation. But they would say the third beast then is Persia, and the fourth beast is Greece. And the little horn that grows out of the fourth beast would be Antiochus Epiphanes, as you said, Antiochus IV. I don’t have time to assess this. If you want to listen to my verse-by-verse lectures on Daniel, which are at our website, thenarrowpath.com, they might go into it in more detail. I wish we had more time, and I actually wish I had the ability to actually solve the problem once and for all, because it is a debate that often comes down to just a person’s point of view on the matter. But I personally think, and the earliest Christians did believe when they commented on Daniel, that the second beast was the Medo-Persian Empire. Then the third was the Grecian, and the fourth was the Roman Empire. But as you say, there’s another view. But I don’t have time to go into it anymore. I’m sorry to say I’m out of time. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
