Marriage, Faithfulness, Biblical Wisdom, The Abomination of Desolation, “Born of Water and Spirit”, and MORE

SPEAKER 01 : 0:38

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 so that you can call in and we can talk in real time. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith you’d like to raise for conversation over the air. If you see things differently from the host and want to discuss that over the air, feel free to give me a call. I’m looking at some open lines, so if you called right now, you’d get right on. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And really, I don’t have many announcements to make right now, I don’t think. So let’s just go directly to the phones, and we’ll talk to John in Kent, Washington. Hi, John. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

SPEAKER 03 : 1:36

Yeah, I see. Yeah, thanks for taking my call. Yeah, I was reading Matthew 24 and all of the discourse. It mentions the fact that Daniel and the prophet Daniel, but it doesn’t mention in Luke’s or Mark’s gospel. I was wondering why that was. And there’s all of the discourse in the abomination of desolation, the same thing. And I’d like to hear your answer off the air. Thanks.

SPEAKER 01 : 1:58

Okay. Yeah, glad to talk to you about that. Okay, thank you. Okay, well, we’re talking about what Jesus said when he was asked when the temple would be destroyed. In Matthew 24, in the opening verses, Jesus made a prediction that the Jewish temple would be destroyed and that not one stone would be left standing on another. As his disciples, and he moved out toward the east of the city onto the Mount of Olives, four of his disciples actually came to him privately, we’re told in Mark 13, Chapter 13, that there were four of them that did. They were James and John and Peter and Andrew. And they came and asked him, when would this be? When would the temple be destroyed? Now, we know the answer to that historically was the temple, in fact, was destroyed 40 years later. by the Romans in AD 70. Now, that’s what Jesus is going to answer to them. They say, when is it going to be, and what sign will there be that it’s about to take place? Well, Jesus’ answer to this question is found in Matthew 24. It’s found in Mark 13, and it’s also found in Luke 21. Now, you’re talking about the fact that in Matthew 24… which is in verse 15, Jesus said, Therefore, when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, whoever reads, let him understand. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. You’re saying that Jesus here mentions the prophecy of Daniel about the abomination of desolation. And yet Mark, you say, doesn’t. But actually Mark mentions it too. Luke doesn’t. Mark chapter 13, verse 14, which is the parallel, says, But when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, let the reader understand, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. So same thing. He says his disciples will see the abomination of desolation. And that’s what Daniel spoke about. And then they’re instructed to flee out of Jerusalem because the temple is about to be destroyed at that time. But the abomination of desolation that’s mentioned in Daniel is an obscure phrase, at least to anyone who’s unfamiliar with the Hebraisms. Abomination of desolation literally means something abominable which presages destruction or desolation of the temple. Now, The abomination that causes desolation is the way the Septuagint renders it in Daniel. And so there’s something that Jesus said they would see that would indicate that the destruction of the temple is near. And in Luke, now, by the way, Luke was not writing to a Jewish person or Jewish audience. He’s writing to a Greek man named Theophilus. And I think Luke was pretty sure that Theophilus wouldn’t be able to make any sense out of the Hebraism. abomination of desolation. Unless you’ve heard biblical teaching on the subject, you probably can’t make any sense of it either. It’s a Hebrew expression. But Luke still recorded the same discourse that Jesus gave, but he paraphrased things that he thought that Theophilus would not be able to understand on his own. So when he got to this very statement of Jesus, where Matthew 24 and Mark 13 both use the expression abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, That entire phraseology is replaced in Luke chapter 21, verse 20, when he said, When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that it’s desolation. is near, then let those in Judea flee to the mountains. You can see it’s the same thing because in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it says when you see X, then flee to the mountains. In Matthew and Mark, it uses the Jewish expression that Jesus used, which is the abomination of desolation. Luke paraphrases that. When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is near. So he’s still talking about the desolation of Jerusalem. He just removes the expression abomination of desolation and replaces it with Jerusalem surrounded by armies, which, of course, were the Roman armies. And they came and did destroy it, just as Jesus predicted. And then in all three of these Gospels, because they are parallel, shortly after that, Jesus says, this generation will not pass before all these things are fulfilled. So the disciples asked Jesus two questions. He had said that the temple would be destroyed. as it in fact was 40 years later, but they didn’t know when it would be. And they said, when will this be, and what sign will there be that it’s about to take place? So the answer to the first of those questions, when will these things be, is in his statement, this generation will not pass before all these things take place. So he gave them the time frame. And he was correct, of course, as we would expect him to be. But then they’d also ask, what sign will there be? And he said, well, when you see the abomination of desolation or destruction, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, the way Luke put it, then know that his desolation is near. So they could know the general time of fulfillment would be within their generation. And as far as specific indicators that it was about to take place, the sign would be the abomination of desolation, which, again, I don’t know how his Jewish disciples understood that, but Luke said, whom we take to be an inspired New Testament writer, understood that to be a reference to the Roman armies coming, and that that would be the signal to them that was about to take place. So that’s what we have there. Now, what did Daniel say about the abomination of desolation? Well, Daniel mentions the abomination of desolation actually three different times, but it’s not always the same one. For example, the first time you find it is in Daniel chapter 9, Verse 27, when it says, it’s talking about the 70th week of Daniel, and in the middle of verse 27 it says, On the wing of abominations shall be one, that is one abomination, who makes desolate. That is an abomination that makes desolation, or the abomination of desolation. That’s the first time it appears. Now this in Daniel 9 occurs after the Messiah has come. And after the Messiah is put to death, because the previous verse in Daniel 9.26 says, after the 62 weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, which means he’ll die. So the death of the Messiah happens. And shortly after that, it says in verse 26, the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Well, that happened. The Romans came. They destroyed the city, Jerusalem, and the sanctuary, the temple, just as was predicted here. And that was the abomination of desolation, according to Daniel 9. Now, the term abomination of desolation occurs a couple of more times, but in different connections. Because it says in Daniel chapter 11, two chapters later, In verse 31, it says, forces shall be mustered by him. And this him in the context is Antiochus Epiphanes, a Syro-Greek oppressor of Israel in the second century B.C., about 167, 168 B.C. This man was oppressing the Jews, and this is who it’s talking about. It says, forces shall be mustered by him. They shall defile the sanctuary fortress, meaning the temple. Then they shall take away the daily sacrifices and place there the abomination of desolation. Now that was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes put an altar to Zeus in the Jewish temple and sacrificed a pig, a very unclean thing in the sight of the Jews, in the temple and it defiled the temple. And that was the abomination that made the temple desolate. But that’s not the same one that Daniel 9 was talking about because Daniel 9 says it will happen after the Messiah has come. Antiochus Epiphanes did this almost 200 years before the Messiah came. So there’s two abominations of desolation that Daniel mentions. Then later on in Daniel 12, verse 11, it says, from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away and the abomination of desolation is set up, there should be 1,290 days. That’s a very obscure passage. I’m not going to speculate about the days, but you see it’s a third reference to the abomination of desolation in the book of Daniel. And it’s not clear whether he’s referring to the one that’s found in chapter 9, which occurs after the Messiah has died, or the one that’s referred to in chapter 11, which is set up by Antiochus Epiphanes. I think it’s the latter. The wording of it makes me think so. But when Jesus said… In the Olivet Discourse, when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not be, that was spoken of in Daniel. Well, was he talking about Daniel 11, Daniel 12, or Daniel 9? It seems obvious it’s Daniel 9. Because the abomination of desolation that was mentioned in Daniel 11, which was said by Antiochus Phippes, was already in the past when Jesus was speaking. So he wouldn’t be speaking in the future tense. It was the abomination of desolation from Daniel 9, 27. that he’s referring to, the only one Daniel mentions, that would be after the Messiah has come and died. So we have to say that the Olivet Discourse then and the abomination of desolation or the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies was fulfilled in AD 70. And so you were wondering if that was different than some other abomination of desolation. I know a more popular teaching today is that there’s something called the abomination of desolation that will happen in the end times. Now, the Bible doesn’t mention that one, but what they basically say is that in the end times there will be a third Jewish temple built, another thing the Bible never mentions, but that this third Jewish temple will be defiled by a future Antichrist who will be a lot like Antiochus Epiphanes was in the second century B.C., But this will be an end times figure who will also defile this future Jewish temple in Jerusalem by sacrificing or by actually putting an idol of himself in the temple. Now, the Bible doesn’t mention this anywhere. There’s no mention of any idol of any Antichrist put in any temple in the end times. If someone says, well, doesn’t it say in Revelation 13 that the second beast will make an image of of the first beast and require everyone to worship it? Yes, but there’s no mention of Jerusalem, no mention of any temple. There’s no mention of geography at all. So there’s nothing there that says he’s going to set an image in a temple. It just says there’s going to be an image, and this seems to be a global situation, that everyone will be required to worship. but not a hint about a temple in Jerusalem there. Now, another place is in 2 Thessalonians 2, where it says that the man of lawlessness will sit in the temple of God, claiming to be God. Well, again, this doesn’t mention anything about an image or an idol. This talks about a man sitting in a place. It has nothing to do with an idol. So there’s nothing in the Bible anywhere about an image or of an Antichrist sitting in a Jewish temple. And by the way, when Paul used the term temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2, this is not the only place in the Bible that Paul uses that expression. There are two other times Paul uses the expression temple of God, and only two other times. The other two are in 1 Corinthians 3.16 and in 2 Corinthians 6.16. In both places, Paul is speaking to the church of Corinth and says, Do you not know that you are the temple of God? So in Paul’s thinking, the church is the temple of God, not the Jewish temple. Paul knew as well as we do that Jesus had abandoned the Jewish temple. He said, Your house has left you desolate. You’ll never see me again unless you say, You know, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. So the Jewish temple is abandoned, is abandoned to its enemies. That’s why it was destroyed in 70 AD. And the only temple of God that has existed ever since the time that Jesus walked the earth is the body of Christ. And Paul referred to the church as the temple of God. So when he said the man of sin will sit in the temple of God, there’s not a reason in the world to imagine that Paul was thinking of the Jewish temple, nor is there anything in the Bible that predicts a future Jewish temple. Now, I realize what I’ve just said goes against what probably 90% of our listeners have heard, taught. And I don’t mean to be a contrarian, but I welcome you to bring up the scriptures that prove me wrong. Because I’m just interested in what’s true. And therefore, if you know of a scripture that says there’s going to be a future Antichrist, and he’s going to set up his image in a future world, Jewish temple. And that is somewhere in the Bible called the abomination of desolation. Those are the things I’m saying are not the case in the Bible. But if someone wants to bring it up, it’s very easy to disprove me with simply a scripture that disproves what I just said. So feel free. I always welcome people who disagree with me to call in. Feel free to call in and show me what scripture you think contradicts my statement. And we do have a couple of lines open if you want to call in. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Jonathan from North Las Vegas, Nevada. Hi, Jonathan. Welcome. Hello, Steve.

SPEAKER 08 : 16:21

I am a 54-year-old man. I’ve been divorced three times. My older three children, they’re grown. I have a 12-year-old and a 15-year-old. I want you to balance or give me a balanced comment on the Proverbs 1 Corinthians 7, 25 through 40. I know there’s two Proverbs that say, he who findeth a wife findeth a good thing. And I think Proverbs 19, 14 says, houses and riches are inheritance from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord. There’s also numerous Proverbs that say it’s better for a man to dwell on the corner of a roof than to share a house with a quarrelsome wife. I’m intimately acquainted with that scenario. I’m sure there’s a few other Proverbs, too. How would you balance that? And I realize that 1 Corinthians 7, 25 through 40 is, I’m assuming for people kind of like in my situation. Could you comment on how the Proverbs and how Paul’s message to the Corinthians correlate with each other?

SPEAKER 01 : 17:26

Well, sure. Yeah, well, Proverbs, of course, is making general statements of observation, of wisdom, and certainly everything that Solomon says can be seen to be true. Paul is not making general comments. He’s speaking to a particular church at a particular time, and he says in verse 26, I suppose, therefore, that this is good, that is remaining single in the context of not getting married. that this is good because of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain unmarried, as I am, he says. So, you know, in a situation where Paul is addressing what he talks about, a church facing the present distress. Now, no scholar, actually, that I know of can tell you what the present distress was in Corinth. But Paul was mindful of a circumstance in Corinth that made Ordinary rules something to apply differently And that was basically he goes on to argue that if you get married you’re gonna have the Burdens of family life, which he thinks is a good thing but he also was glad that he didn’t have the burdens of family life because he traveled and he was Imprisoned a lot and things like that. It would have made it very hard to have you know a family or to attend to a family with his calling and And he’s saying there are others who may be called as I am to just devote themselves wholly to serving God without the distractions of family life. And he says, you know, at times like these, and again, we don’t know what those times were specifically. We don’t know enough of the circumstances. He said, but the audience knew. They knew what their circumstances were. He said, in the present distress, it might be good for more people to stay single is what he’s saying. and to avoid the hassles of family life. Now, he’s not contradicting what Solomon said, that a wife is a good thing to have. He’s simply saying it may be a good thing to have a wife, but this timing may not be good. It may not be a really good time to move in that direction in your life. There may be a more convenient time in the future. But Solomon’s statement, he does say that he that finds a wife finds a good thing. is simply affirming what it says in Genesis chapter 1, that God made male and female, and he blessed them, and it says when he saw what he made, it was very good. Having a wife, or at least let’s just say the idea of a wife is a good thing to have. If you don’t have wives, you don’t have families. If you don’t have families, you don’t have children. If you don’t have children, the human race doesn’t last very long. So it’s a good thing. Husbands and wives, marriage is a good thing. And God ordained it to be a good thing. Now Solomon also in some of the Proverbs mentions conditions. He says, in one place he says, a wise woman builds her house, but a foolish woman tears it down with her own hands. And by that he means the family. A good woman builds a family in cooperation with her husband. An evil woman or a foolish woman tears the family apart, whether the husband’s trying to make it work or not. Many husbands, like yourself perhaps, have seen that. You try to save the family. You try to make it work. You’ve got a wife who’s just not interested in the family working, and they tear it down with their own choices and their own decisions. Solomon recognizes that. He also notes that a good wife is a wonderful thing. And so I think everyone would agree with that, unless someone hasn’t ever known a good wife or seen a good wife or known what it is. A good wife is a wonderful gift of God. Houses and lands are the inheritance of fathers, but a good wife is from the Lord. And that makes it very clear that not all wives are good. When you have a good wife, that’s a special blessing from God. Because many people have wives that aren’t good, and many women have husbands that aren’t good. Marriages are not easy in themselves, and they’re not always a good match. People can very foolishly marry somebody that’s going to be a headache to them and to their children and a curse to them, ultimately. That’s not what the Bible recommends. Of course, the Bible assumes certain things about marriage, too, because it was written at a time when integrity was something that mattered to people. most people would be ashamed to be known as a scoundrel, as a liar, as a sham. And one’s integrity and one’s character was of great value. It’s a shame-based culture. And if someone could show that you were a liar and a cheat, you’d endure shame and so forth. And so people didn’t, they weren’t as careless about keeping their promises as sometimes we are. Because in our society, people aren’t ashamed. If you lie and someone says you’re a liar, you just say, who cares? I made money off you. I got what I wanted from you. Who cares if I’m a liar? Now, when you get married, you make promises. And in certain ages earlier than our own, people took those promises seriously. And they wouldn’t get divorced just because they had a hard time adjusting to married life. They were committed to being married, especially once they had children. They wanted to have children. a home that was going to be safe and healthy for their children. So if they had a hard time getting along, at least Christian people, they wanted to work it out. And sometimes if they couldn’t work it out to be happily married, they’d stay married anyway for the children or just to be honest people. Because after all, you do promise at the altar that you will stay with them and cherish them. and nourish them. You say, but she doesn’t nourish me or cherish me. Yeah, you didn’t promise that she would nourish you. She promised that. You promised you’d nourish her. So you can only keep your promises. You can’t keep your spouse’s promises. That’s on them. Now, unfortunately, we have a lot of people in our society who couldn’t care less about their integrity, couldn’t care less about their character, and they couldn’t care less about their promises. And therefore, they’ll divorce simply because they’re not happy in the marriage. In In a more mature and honest society, people who weren’t happy in their marriage would say, what can I do to be happier in my marriage? Or their spouse, who knew that they weren’t happy in their marriage, would think, what can I do to make my spouse happier? In other words, most people knew they were going to stick it out. unless they just want to make themselves liars and turn their vows into, you know, shams. And so, you know, they wanted to be happy rather than unhappy, if they could. So people would work on their marriages. We live in a time where people will work on their marriages for a while, but if it isn’t easy, an awful lot of them will just dump it and go looking for something better, which means they make themselves scoundrels. Because if you promise you’ll do a certain thing and the other person shapes their whole life around the assumption you’re going to keep your promise, and then you betray them and say, sorry, I don’t care what I promise. I’m going to do what I want to do. That’s a horrendous betrayal. That just shows that a person has zero character. And if you have zero character, no one should ever trust you again. But so many people have zero character and divorce their spouses for no good reason. that, you know, people stop taking it seriously as they just figure, well, I guess you’re about average. Yeah, average isn’t what God’s looking for. God’s looking for people who are faithful people, who swear to their own hurt and don’t change, the Bible says. So an honest Christian who’s determined to please God will never divorce their spouse unless they’re more or less forced to by their spouse’s behavior, which can usually mean their spouse is cheating, or their spouse has abandoned the marriage and won’t come back. So, you know, you’ve had some bad wives. I don’t know if you’ve been a good husband or not. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your wife might not think you were. I don’t know what they think. All I can say is that if people are dedicated to Christ and married, they’re first of all not going to be trying to make each other’s lives miserable. Secondly, they’re going to try to make a safe and permanent home for their children to be raised in. and to be nurtured in Christ. Third, they’re going to endure hardship together and grow closer together through it rather than become each other’s rivals and enemies in a hard situation. But there are women and men, but Solomon mentions there are women who tear down their house with their own hands. I have known a couple of those too. And apparently you have too. What can I say? The Bible doesn’t say marriage is always… Easy or that always has good results. But marriage is a good thing because God made it. And because it’s a good thing, we need to work hard to make ours as good as it can be for God’s glory. We need to take a break. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. We have another half hour. Don’t go away.

SPEAKER 02 : 27:01

Is the Great Tribulation about to begin? Are we seeing the fulfillment of biblical prophecy unfolding before our very eyes? In the series, When Shall These Things Be?, Steve Gregg answers these and many other intriguing questions. The lecture series entitled, When Shall These Things Be?, can be downloaded in MP3 format without charge from our website, thenarrowpath.com.

SPEAKER 01 : 27:41

Welcome back to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or a disagreement with the host and want to call and talk about that, you are welcome here. Five days a week, Monday through Friday, we’ve been doing this show for 29 years. We did take a hiatus for about a year back in the early 2000s, but other than that, we’ve been on steadily since 1997, five days a week, which is a lot of radio shows we’ve had, and we’re still doing it. So if you can’t get on today, try tomorrow. We should be here still, Lord willing. But we do have several calls waiting that I hope we can get them all on before out of time. We have another half hour. Let’s talk to Glenn in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Glenn, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for coming.

SPEAKER 05 : 28:34

Hi, Steve. Question of Passover. Jesus was on a cross. Said, truly, truly, you’ll be in paradise with me tonight. And then two other scriptures. He spent three days in the heart of the earth. And don’t touch me because I haven’t seen the Father yet. How are all three?

SPEAKER 01 : 29:01

Well, yeah, I don’t see those as so difficult. Although what you’re saying is Jesus spent three days in the tomb, or at least that’s how he described it, three days and three nights. And yet the beginning of that three days, he was on the cross, right? And he told the thief, today you’ll be with me in paradise, which suggests that he, Jesus, would go to paradise. And so would that thief that very day. And so how could that be if he was dead for the next three days and then rose again? And then the third scripture you’re thinking of, I’m sorry, it slipped my mind. What was the third scripture you’re trying to put in there?

SPEAKER 05 : 29:41

Don’t touch me.

SPEAKER 01 : 29:43

I haven’t seen the Father yet.

SPEAKER 05 : 29:44

Mary Magdalene, I think.

SPEAKER 01 : 29:46

Yeah, John chapter 21. Yeah, Mary Magdalene, when she first saw him after he rose, he didn’t say, I haven’t seen the Father yet. He said, do not hapto me. The Greek word is hapto, which means cling to me. It can mean touch, but in this context, it means don’t cling to me because I have yet to ascend to the Father. In other words, I’m back, but I’m not staying. I’m going to still yet ascend to the Father, and I won’t be here, so don’t cling to me. Don’t insist on me. me being here present with you. I’m sure that, you know, she was very affectionate toward Jesus, as we know. So when she saw him alive after she thought he was gone for good, she probably grabbed on to him. We know that later the same day, some other women grabbed his feet when they saw him. Pardon?

SPEAKER 06 : 30:35

Yeah, no, do you think she gave him a hug? Do you think she wasn’t allowed to talk to him?

SPEAKER 01 : 30:42

Oh, okay. No, no, I’m sure she did give him a hug. I mean, later the same day, in fact, probably only minutes later, He appeared to other women. And when they saw him, it says they grabbed his feet and they worshipped him. So, I mean, yeah, I mean, they touched him. I don’t know why Mary wouldn’t. Now, what you’re suggesting is when Jesus said, touch me not, this is how the King James renders it, touch me not. I have yet to ascend to my father. Some people think that, well, she couldn’t touch him. And yet people did a few minutes later in another situation. So it must be, they say. that he ascended to the Father after he saw her. And then when he came back, like almost immediately from the Father, the other women were allowed to touch him. But she wasn’t because he hadn’t yet ascended to the Father. That’s not what he’s saying. The King James says, touch me not. The word touch, the Greek word is hapto. And hapto has a variety of meanings. but one of its common meanings is to cling to. And so I think even the New King James, which follows the King James very closely, but not slavishly, I think even the New King James has it say, do not cling to me. I’m not looking at the passage right now, but almost every new translation would say, don’t cling to me, because that’s the meaning in this context. He’s saying, don’t cling to me as if to never let me go. I’m going again. I’m going to send to my father. Not today, but… Not tomorrow. We know it happened 40 days later that he ascended to the Father. He’s predicting that. He’s saying, I know that you thought I was going to be here forever and I was taken away from you when I was crucified. And now I’m back and you probably are determined to never let me be taken away from you again. But I’m going to be taken away from you. I’m going to ascend to my Father yet. And so he’s saying don’t cling to me, meaning don’t become emotionally dependent on my presence here physically because I’m leaving again is basically what he’s saying. So as far as where paradise is, it would appear that paradise where he and that man were that very day was part of Sheol or Hades. And that’s how the Jews used the term paradise in those days. Hades is where all the dead people went. This is Jewish theology in Second Temple Judaism. And Hades had two compartments. One of them was paradise, or Abraham’s bosom. The other was, they called it Gehinom. But the point is that the righteous went to Abraham’s bosom, or paradise. They were in Hades, which is in their thinking under the ground, but it was not heaven. And he didn’t go up to see God during that time. He was in Hades. He was in apparently paradise. So then, of course, he rose from the dead, and 40 days later he did ascend to heaven. So when he said to the man, today you’ll be with me in paradise, I assume he told the truth that they were both in paradise, which was in Hades. At that time, then, of course, he rose from the dead. And when he told Mary, don’t cling to me because I have I’m going to eventually send to my father. He’s talking about her emotional attachment there. I mean, she was probably physically holding on to him. But but of course, that was a physical demonstration of her emotional attachment. And he said, listen, you need to need to kind of let me go. I’m going to be going. I’m going again. So don’t hang on to me. Not not saying that it’s wrong for to touch him. But for him to try to hold on to him as if he’s, you know, she’s not going to let him go again. Well, I am going again, is what he’s saying. And that’s how I understand his words in those places.

SPEAKER 05 : 34:31

The fruits?

SPEAKER 01 : 34:32

Pardon?

SPEAKER 05 : 34:34

Was the thief part of the first fruits?

SPEAKER 01 : 34:38

I don’t know about first fruits.

SPEAKER 05 : 34:42

I thought when they came out of the

SPEAKER 01 : 34:45

ground he took the first fruits with them up to heaven with them well the bible doesn’t say that clearly you may be thinking of ephesians 4 uh where it says that jesus when he ascended he led a host of captives some people think that’s referring to the righteous from paradise they went into heaven with him when he ascended that’s one possible interpretation of that so that could be but uh But, I mean, the man who died in faith, the thief, who turned to Christ on the cross, that man simply, after death, joined others who had died in faith throughout the whole Old Testament period in paradise, and Jesus apparently with them. And then when Jesus ascended, it is generally believed that, yes, they did ascend with him into heaven. This is not stated in unambiguous terms in Scripture, but there are some statements of Scripture that kind of would lean that way probably. Thank you for your call. Let’s talk to James in Memphis, Tennessee. Hi, James.

SPEAKER 09 : 35:49

Welcome.

SPEAKER 01 : 35:54

Are you listening to the radio or watching TV or something? I’m hearing advertisements.

SPEAKER 09 : 35:58

All right.

SPEAKER 01 : 36:01

Thank you.

SPEAKER 09 : 36:02

Yes, thank you. Thank you for taking my call, Steve. Look, Steve, in St. John’s, when Jesus said, Man must be born again of the water and of the spirit. What’s your take on the water?

SPEAKER 01 : 36:24

Yeah. Well, many people think he’s referring to being baptized here. I don’t see anything in the context that would suggest this. It’s a very common thing for Christians. Actually, the first place I heard this suggestion was from the Mormons. But then I found out that lots of Christians think the same way about it, that when Jesus said, a man, he says in verse 5 of John 3, Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. For some reason, there’s a number of Christians who have decided that born is a synonym for baptized. Now, I don’t know of anything in the Bible that equates baptized. Baptism with being born so I’m not sure why they would read it into this he’s talking about birth. He’s not two kinds of birth He first says a man has to be born again The assumption is he’s been born once already you know and he’s got to be born again and And and he doesn’t explain initially what that second birth is but in verse 5 he says well a man has to have two births he’s got to be born of water and And born of the Spirit. So the second birth is being born of the Spirit. The first birth is being born of water. Now, what does that mean? Does it mean baptized? If it does, there’s certainly no explanation in Scripture that would suggest it. That is a tradition that apparently some groups have adopted, but if we’re going to go exegetically and read the Bible for what it says and not what we try to make it say, there’s not a hint here that he’s got baptism in mind. But what would be born of water then? Well, he contrasts that. That’s the first birth is born of water. The second birth is being born of the Spirit. Those are the two births he mentions here. The next verse, verse 6, he says, that which is born of the flesh, Now notice all through here he’s talking about two different births. There’s the one that Nicodemus already has, but then he has to be born again. So there’s a second birth to be gone through. In verse 5, he contrasts these two births. He calls the first one being born of water, and the second one he calls being born of the Spirit. In the next verse, 6, he also speaks of the second birth as being born of the Spirit, but he speaks of the first birth there as being born of the flesh. So the spiritual birth is the second birth. The first birth is called, in verse 5, born of water, and in verse 6, born of flesh. Now, born of the flesh simply means physically born, which seems to point in the direction of interpreting born of water to refer to physical birth. A man has to have two births. He must be born of water, and he’s got to be born of the Spirit. He’s got to be born of the flesh, which is the initial birth, and born of the Spirit, as he said earlier. Now, why would physical birth be referred to as being born of water? An answer kind of can occur to us, although we don’t know exactly if this is the right answer. We certainly know that In most cases, virtually every case, when a baby is born, it is preceded with the breaking of the waters. And the coming of the waters indicate the baby’s right behind. You know, this is the birth. The birth has begun. You know, the sack is broken. The baby’s coming right out behind the water, pretty much. So the idea is that the first birth is you’re born through this watery birth. But then there’s a different, and that’s just natural birth. That’s being born of the water, which verse 6 calls being born of the flesh. The other birth is being born of the spirit. Now, just as being born of the water or born of the flesh, natural birth is coming into a new world as a baby, right? and starting a new life. So a person needs to have a spiritual rebirth in the sense that they need to come into the spiritual world with a new spiritual life as a spiritual baby. They need to start all over in terms of their spiritual journey, their spiritual experience. So he’s saying that, you know, everybody has been naturally born, of course, but not everybody has had the second birth. Not everyone has been born of the spirit. Now, by the way, this statement and this contrast no doubt was particularly poignant because he was talking to Nicodemus, you know, a well-pedigreed Jewish leader. And the Jews believed that they were God’s special people because of their natural birth. They were born, descended from Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, and they felt like that made them different and better than others and God’s special favorites. And when Jesus said, well, no… I don’t care who your ancestors are. Even if you’re descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that’s nothing more than fleshly descent. And whatever is born of the flesh is still flesh. So it doesn’t matter who your fleshly ancestors were. You’re not different than anyone else who’s flesh. Due to that birth, if you want to be God’s people, you want to be in God’s family, you want to be a child of God, you’ve got to have something more than your natural pedigree. You’ve got to have a spiritual experience, a spiritual rebirth. And that’s what Nicodemus is being told. And, of course, Christians ever since have recognized that that’s true. You’re not a Christian because you have Christian parents or ancestors. You’re a Christian because you have experienced a spiritual regeneration where, as Paul put it, we pass from death into life. So a new life has started in the spiritual realm. We have spiritual fruit produced in our lives. We have spiritual gifts given to us. We have a spiritual life that’s eternal in nature and so forth. So, I mean, it’s coming into a new realm, the spiritual realm. And this happens when we put our faith in Christ. We know this because even after Jesus explained this to him, the man said, Well, how can these things be? In verse 9, Nicodemus answered, how can these things be? How can a man be born spiritually? Fortunately, Jesus answered that. In verse 10, he said, are you a teacher of Israel, the teacher of Israel, and you don’t know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, we speak, and I think he means John the Baptist himself, probably, what we know and testify what we’ve seen, and you, meaning the Jewish leaders, do not receive our witness. He said, if I’ve told you earthly things… And you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? Now, here’s how he answers the question, how can these things be? Verse 14. Jesus said, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, and that means on the cross, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. Now, when you’re born again, you’re born into eternal life. Well, how do you do that? Well, by believing in him. Just like when Moses raised up the serpent in God’s instructions, a bronze serpent, and the Jews who were dying of snake bite, if they looked at the serpent, they’d be healed. Jesus said, well, I’m going to be lifted up too, just like that serpent was on a pole. And it’s not people looking at me, but whoever believes in me will not die. but will have everlasting life. That is, they’ll be born into this eternal second birth. And so that’s what he’s talking about there. If somebody wants to say that born of water and born of the Spirit refers to baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit, obviously I can’t stop them, but I don’t think that that’s suggested anywhere in the text. And I think if you follow the train of thought from beginning to end, it just means you have to have a spiritual rebirth. which happens when you repent and put your faith in Christ and become His disciple. Then He gives you His Spirit, and you’re born or regenerated of the Spirit of God. All right. Let’s talk next to… It’s going to be Kevin in Tampa, Florida. Hi, Kevin. Welcome.

SPEAKER 04 : 44:58

Hey, Steve. How are you doing, sir? Fine, thanks. Yeah, just to kind of go back on the first question of the show, I was just kind of curious about the Son of Perdition. And it said… I’m just kind of wondering if it’s kind of specific or if it’s kind of general to things that are going on today. But it did say that the Antichrist would not know a woman. Can you expound on that? I’m going to hang up and just kind of listen to you a little bit more. But if you can expound on that. Okay.

SPEAKER 01 : 45:28

Well, let me do that. The Bible doesn’t say the Antichrist will not know a woman. And, by the way, I know what you’re thinking of. You’re thinking of Daniel. I think it’s in chapter 11 of Daniel when it’s talking about a willful king who will, you know, he will not have, what, the love of a woman or something like that. The wording is something like he will not, you know, care about women kind of thing. It’s not clear exactly what it’s referring to, partly because it might be that he doesn’t care about women. you know, the body of Christ, the church. He doesn’t care about the child of Mary, you know, the seed of the woman that was promised in Genesis. It’s not clear what he said. Or it might mean he’ll be a celibate. But it doesn’t say he’s the Antichrist. It does not equate him with the man of lawlessness. This is what preachers have done for us. This is not what the Bible does for us. The Bible nowhere. Now, see, 2 Thessalonians 2 talks about the man of lawlessness. It never equates him, for example, with the beast of Revelation 13. And it never equates him with any of the characters necessarily in Daniel, though it might be that the little horn of Daniel chapter 7 could be seen as the same person that Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. But in Daniel chapter 11, we don’t know who he’s talking about. It’s basically verse 37 says, It says, he shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women. Now, the desire of women could be a reference to Christ, the desire of all Jewish women. They desire the Messiah. And the desire of women could be a reference to the Messiah. Or it might mean he doesn’t desire women. The phrase is ambiguous. But more ambiguous is who is it talking about? Now, it’s a popular thing for modern teachers to say it’s talking about a future Antichrist. However, in the context of Daniel 11, it comes immediately after the talk about Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus Epiphanes is the subject of verses 29 through 35, at least. And so we’re in the range of 168 B.C. in this passage. And then it says in verse 36, then the king, it doesn’t say which king, shall do according to his own will. Some people think that’s a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes too, since he’s the only king that’s been mentioned in the immediate context. Others think it’s a future king. Others think it’s a different king since Antiochus, but long ago, like Herod. There’s a lot of different views about this king. Sometimes Bible teachers call him the willful king because it says the king shall do according to his own will. And so verses 36 through 45, that is to the end of the chapter, Daniel 11. is about this willful king. His identity has been discussed many ways. Again, some people think it’s talking about Antiochus Epiphanes. Some think it’s talking about Herod. Some think it’s talking about the papacy. Some think it’s talking about a future Antichrist at the end of time. These arguments can be listened to, and you could, you know, it’d be worth, you know, if it really matters for you to know, then you could certainly read commentators that take these different views. I’m not really sure I care who it is, but the point is There’s nothing in the passage that identifies this willful king with the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2. Now, I’m not saying that you heard somebody wrong. I think you probably heard somebody right. They were just wrong. And that is that many teachers, very popular teachers, they will say that the willful king in Daniel 11, and the little horn in Daniel 7, and sometimes even the little horn in Daniel 8, and the beast, the first beast of Revelation chapter 13, and the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2, they just say that’s all the same person. Now, there’s not anything in the Bible that would support the notion that all those bad guys are the same persons. In fact, the little horn in Daniel 7 grows out of the Roman Empire. The little horn… in Daniel 8, grows out of the Grecian Empire. They’re not even the same race as each other. And yet, there’s just this penchant that people have for eschatology that everyone they can’t identify otherwise, clearly, they want to make an eschatological figure. And so, you know, I have heard, as many of us have, all these refer to this future Antichrist. I disagree. I don’t know that any of them do. And if some of them do, they don’t all. But the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition, is only mentioned in one place, and that’s in 2 Thessalonians 2. And there’s nothing there about what you asked about not marrying or something. It’s the little willful king in Daniel 11, 37, who does not regard the desire of women as And whatever that means, well, there’s more than one possible thing that could mean. So, and again, a person’s welcome to make it mean anything they want to. I don’t think it will change anything. It’s a matter of curiosity only to my mind. But I appreciate your call, brother. All right. Let’s talk to, let’s see who’s been here longest. We only have a little bit of time. Gerald in Little Rock, Arkansas is next. Hi, Gerald. Welcome.

SPEAKER 07 : 51:10

Hey, how you doing? I really like your show. Yes, sir. I just wanted to say something about like in the Greek and Hebrew original writings or whatever before they were put in the, you know, the King James had described to you that there was no punctuation or anything like that. Is that correct?

SPEAKER 01 : 51:30

Well, I understand that’s true of the Greek in the New Testament that there’s no punctuation. I don’t know much about the punctuation of the Hebrew. You may be right. It may be that there was none.

SPEAKER 07 : 51:40

Well, the reason I bring that up is because the way I understand it, whenever it says, today you shall be with me in the kingdom, I think the poem is in the wrong place. I think he was just saying today, I’m just telling you today, you know, while we’re both here looking helpless or whatever, you know, but you will be with me. I understand.

SPEAKER 01 : 52:04

He was assuring you. I understand. I mean, this is the Seventh-day Adventist position.

SPEAKER 07 : 52:09

And did I nail it?

SPEAKER 01 : 52:13

Okay, gotcha. Okay. All right. Well, let me tell you. Let me explain for people, because we only have a few minutes, what your position is. I’m not going to refute it. I’m just going to say this is the position that you guys hold. And that is that when Jesus actually said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise. He’s speaking to the thief on the cross. There is no punctuation in the Greek, so there is a comma in our English translation, but the comma could possibly be moved. We have it this way. Verily, verily, I say unto you, comma, today you will be with me in paradise. So it sounds like he’s saying that very day they will be together in paradise because the comma is where it is. Now, the Seventh-day Adventists say, well, wait, the comma could be moved. because it’s not in the Greek, he could be saying, verily, verily, I say unto you today, comma, you will be with me in paradise. So that Jesus would be saying that today refers to when he’s saying it, not when they will be in paradise. So I say unto you today, comma, you will be with me in paradise, but not meaning immediately. You know, someday we’ll all be in paradise together, and that would be all he’s affirming. Now, technically, it is possible to move the comma there, and it would have that very implication. So I’m not going to refute that. My own thought is that that is not as likely in my mind as it is probably in yours. But Jesus often introduced the statement by saying, verily, verily, I say unto you. It’s a fairly common way to introduce a statement of Jesus. In no other case did he say, Verily, verily, I say unto you, today. Comma. And then make his statement. Adding the word today to the introductory, Verily, verily, I say unto you. I don’t think we have another case of it. And so it makes it seem less likely to me that he’s adding that word to the introductory statement there. But it’s not impossible. So you could be correct. Thank you for your call. Well, thank you for taking my call.

SPEAKER 07 : 54:27

And I really do like the show, and I’ll try to catch it. Thank you.

SPEAKER 01 : 54:30

Thank you, brother. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener-supported. If you’d like to write to us, the address is TheNarrowPath, P.O. Box 1730… Temecula, California, 92593. Our website’s thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.