Menu
Join host Steve Gregg in this thought-provoking episode of The Narrow Path as we delve into several key theological questions raised by live callers. We kick off with a discussion on what it means to be ‘good’ in heaven, examining scriptural contexts about forgiveness and moral standards. Listeners are guided through the historical and biblical roots of baptism, noting its evolution from John the Baptist to contemporary practices.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon with phone lines open for you to call if you have questions you want to raise for conversation on the air about the Bible or the Christian faith or related subjects or about any disagreements you might have with the host. We’ll be glad to talk about those as well. And just like yesterday, today, and both of these things are very unusual, today we have no calls waiting. That was true at the beginning of the show yesterday. Of course, they filled up as soon as I announced it. But that means it’s a real good time for you to get through if you’ve tried before and could not get through to the program. Here’s the number, 844-484-5737. That’s 844- 484-5737. All right. We have an announcement or two this Saturday, day after tomorrow. In Southern California, there are two meetings, if people are interested in joining us. Saturday morning in Temecula, we have a men’s morning Bible study that I lead. That’s at 8 o’clock Saturday morning. in Temecula. In the evening, we have what has been a monthly meeting in Boynton Park, for the most part, for many years now. Boynton Park, Saturday night, that’s for everybody. And it’s going to be the last one in the foreseeable future, so if you’ve never made it out there to meet us and participate in one of those meetings, this Saturday night will be the last chance to go there. It’s going to be a Q&A, so if you’re interested in either of those meetings, go to thenarrowpath.com and look under Announcements. You’ll find the place and time of these meetings, and then you can join us if you’re in the area and available. All right, we’re going to go to the phones now and talk to Steve in Eugene, Oregon. Steve, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hey, Steve. This is Steve in Eugene, Oregon. I just want to say it’s a pleasure to talk to you. And there’s a statement I’ve always – I just want to know what you think about this and any scripture references to this statement. There are no good people in heaven, just forgiven people. And I can take your comments off there.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Okay, Steve, thanks. There are no good people in heaven, just forgiven people. That depends on what the standard of goodness is. Obviously, no one is perfect except Christ. And therefore, if we mean there are no people there who are sinless, who have never done anything wrong, of course there are none like that. There’s none in heaven or on earth or in hell. There’s none anywhere that have ever lived except for Christ, of which that could be said. Now, I will say this. Sometimes evangelical Christians shy away from admitting that the Bible does say that some people are good people. Now, to say they’re good people doesn’t mean they deserve heaven. It doesn’t mean that they are perfect people. But definitely people are graded on a scale of their works. And sometimes evangelicals are terrified to admit that. They want everyone to be, well, part of that is due to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, that, you know, nobody except those that God, you know, regenerates have anything good in them at all. And then even when Paul’s, you know, As a Christian speaking, he says, Jesus Christ came to save sinners of whom I am chief. And he said, in me that is in my flesh there dwells no good thing. So, of course, those statements have to be taken in context. But the point is, some would take scriptures like that and say, none of us are any good. But compared to what? If we’re saying compared to God, that’s true. There’s none good but God only in that sense. But what about people who are said to be good people in the Bible? Numerous people are said to be good. The word applies to numbers of people. And more than that, people like Job were said to be blameless and avoiding evil and choosing what’s good. The parents of John the Baptist were said to be blameless in all the requirements of the law and so forth in Luke chapter 1. So, I mean, I think that Reformed people have bequeathed to us the idea that people are all just really bad. And that’s why we go to hell or that’s why we’re not saved. No, the reason we’re not saved is because we have a broken relationship with God. It’s being restored to a proper relationship with God that saves us. And people who are restored, well, let’s just say people who are not yet restored in their relationship with God are not, you know, good enough to be saved or to go to heaven if that’s what they’re thinking of. But there are people who are better than others. There are people who choose to try to live a good life. Many of them are not even Christians. Certainly a lot of people like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and people like that have sought to live good lives. Now, God prefers that people would choose that. I was raised in an evangelical Protestant home where I always heard, if you try to do good works, you’re insulting God because you’re trying to purchase your salvation and it’s worth far more than what you could pay And so you’re offering a tawdry price to God for something that’s of infinite value. Only Jesus can pay that price, and you cannot. Well, that all sounds very good, but the Bible does not say anything against people who are seeking to do good works. Now, if a person thinks, I can do such good works that it will cancel out my sins, well, then they’re mistaken. But, you know, the Bible does say we will be judged by our works. And, in fact, it says specifically those who have done good works. will rise to the resurrection of life, whereas those who have done evil will rise to the resurrection of condemnation. Jesus said that in John 5, 28 and 29. So, you know, it’s all a relative thing. Some people are definitely better than others because they desire to be. They desire to please God. They desire to serve humanity. Now, Calvinists, if he’s a strict Calvinist, is going to say, well, even their desire to do good is evil because they are totally depraved. And if they’re not Christians, they can only do evil. And therefore, even what appears to be good intentions on their part really have a sinful motivation behind them. Well, I’m not sure how they know that. The Bible certainly doesn’t tell us that. So it seems to me like a very uncharitable judgment to people you’ve never met to say that everybody who’s not a Christian has evil motives for seeking to do good. But, of course, that would be necessary if the doctrine of total depravity is true. But, of course, it isn’t. At least the Bible doesn’t teach it. In fact, the Bible seems to teach against it. So anyway, if we say, well, there’s no good people in heaven, only forgiven people, That’s true if we mean by good, perfect people, good enough to earn salvation or something like that. Yeah, I would have to agree with that statement. But I’m not as squeamish as some evangelicals are about admitting that the Bible does call some people good, some of whom lived before the time of Christ and were not what we call Christians yet. Job being among them and others. So, yeah, I’m not going to go around using that talking point. You know, there’s no good people in heaven. I’d say there’s no perfect people in heaven except Jesus. But everyone else who’s there would be forgiven of their imperfections. That’d be, I believe, a much more accurate biblical statement. All right. Let’s talk to Mark in Omaha, Nebraska. Mark, welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks a lot for taking my call. The question I have is I was reading Matthew 3, and as I was thinking about what John the Baptist was doing as far as baptizing for the repentance of sins, it made me think back to the Old Testament. And in the Old Testament, I don’t recall hearing of baptizing, although I could be wrong. And I thought the way that sins were atoned for was through the temple system and sacrifice. And so after the last of the prophets and moving into the intertestamental period, and then we have John the baptism. And all of a sudden, you know, I start reading about, you know, here’s this Jewish population before they knew about Jesus. And they’re talking about baptizing for the repentance of sins. Can you just shed some light on that for me, please, about when in the Jewish tradition or culture or commandment was baptizing for the repentance of sins becoming more commonplace than, I guess, sacrifice in the temple? Yeah, thank you. Okay, sure.
SPEAKER 02 :
The phrase you keep using, baptized for the repentance of sins, is not a biblical phrase. Baptism unto repentance or a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins is probably a better way to put it. The baptism was… a declaration of repentance. So a person who was being baptized was coming because they were confessing, it says. When they came to John the Baptist, they came confessing their sins and repenting of them and receiving forgiveness. Now, the water doesn’t wash away sin, of course. Only the blood of Jesus does that. Even animal sacrifices didn’t wash away sin. It says in Hebrews that it’s impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. What saves us is our relationship with God, as I said to the previous caller. Now, our relationship with God is based on our humble hearts submitted to him and surrendered to him and desiring to do his will. Now, that requires repentance and faith because repentance means you change your mind. From what? From being committed to your own way. Your natural tendency is to go your own way. Repentance, metanoia in the Greek means to change your mind. You change your mind about whose way you’re going to go. You’re not going to go your way. You’re going to go his way now. When that change is genuine, and it’s not just that some street evangelist has cornered you and made you say a prayer, but rather you really in your heart have decided to change your ways and to go back. you know, to God and to follow him instead of your own ways, and you trust in him for his mercy, that’s what saves you. Now, that was true in the Old Testament. That’s true in the time of Jesus and John the Baptist. And that’s true after the time of Jesus having come. Now, that doesn’t mean that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with it. It had everything to do with it. In my opinion, the persons who were forgiven of their sins before Jesus came were forgiven by the blood of Jesus just the same as those of us who are forgiven after he came. That his death takes care of all the sins of the repentant and believers before and after he came. In fact, this seems to be what Paul is saying in Romans 3, 25, when he says that God set forth Jesus, to be a propitiation by his blood through faith to demonstrate his God’s righteousness, because in his forbearance, God had passed over the sins that were previously committed. That is, God passed over the sins that were committed before Jesus was set forth as a propitiation. So we know that people were forgiven in the Old Testament. David, for example, was forgiven of his sins with Bathsheba. That’s among other things. Abraham was justified, which includes being forgiven, declared righteous by his faith, it says in Genesis 15, 6. And certainly the impression I have from reading Hebrews 11 is that every faithful person in the Old Testament was forgiven, but not because of the temple system and certainly not because of baptism. It was because of Jesus. He had not yet, but God knew that he was going to. So in my opinion, we could say that they were forgiven on credit and Jesus came and paid the tab because his death, I believe, is retroactively forgiving as well as forward looking forgiving. I believe that he died for the sins of the world. And Paul says that God set him forth as a propitiation to justify God’s having forgiven sins that were previously committed by people before Jesus came. So that’s how I understand it. Now, baptism, as far as dipping in water. was not a practice of the Jews that I know of for very long before John the Baptist came to it. In fact, it’s not certain, at least maybe they’ve discovered something I haven’t seen yet, but from the studies I did some years ago, it seems like water baptism is not known for sure to have been practiced by the Jews in the days of John the Baptist or Jesus. there is apparently some testimony of it from at least the second century, which is like a century after Jesus, that the Jews were doing that with their proselytes, that when a person wanted, a Gentile wanted to become a Jew, he’d be circumcised. But also it became customary, I guess, for the Jews to baptize a new proselyte as well. Now, this may have been going on before the time of John the Baptist. It’s just a question of how far back we can document it. We know the Jews did this a short time after the time of Christ, and they may have done it in the time of Christ or even before. That’s just something we’re not sure of. If they did do it before that, then John’s baptism would have been rather controversial, I would think, because if the Jews were already baptizing unclean Gentiles when they wanted to be proselytes and become Jews, then John the Baptist would be saying, well, here, I’m going to do the same ritual for you. You Jews need it too. It’s not just Gentiles who aren’t clean. It’s you guys, too. You need to repent also and come and be baptized. So it’s tempting to see it that way. I don’t think we have absolute knowledge of the Jews practicing this before the time of John the Baptist. But we don’t have absolute knowledge that they didn’t. And we do know that they did shortly after. So it’s possible. It’s possible that it was a practice. Now, one thing that’s interesting is back in 2 Kings 5, we have the famous story of Naaman the leper. and how he came to Elisha to be healed of his leprosy. And Elisha said, go dip yourself seven times in the River Jordan. In the Septuagint, that’s the Greek Old Testament. the word dip is baptized. Because the word baptized means to dip or to immerse. And in the Septuagint, Elisha says to Naaman, go baptize yourself seven times in the river Jordan and you’ll come clean. And he did. And when he came up, it says his skin, which had been leprous before, was now like the skin of a little child, like he was born again, kind of. I think this is a type and a shadow. I don’t think this is how people got saved in Old Testament times, by dipping in the Jordan. But I do believe that these commands and the result are no doubt a type and a shadow of how we are to be baptized also. Only this time it’s for the remittance of sin. But the baptism, I think the power of the baptism is not in the water. Water on your skin can’t wash away sins in your heart. It’s that you outwardly wash yourself as an emblem that you have turned to God already in your heart. And baptism in the New Testament does hark back to several Old Testament images. One is not an Old Testament image per se, but it’s just the image of a person who’s dead being buried and rising again to the new life. The other two images are from the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul said that the Jews coming out of Egypt, coming through the Red Sea, were baptized in the sea. That’s a type and a shadow of us, he says in 1 Corinthians 10. Now, passing through the water of the Red Sea, escaping from Egypt and coming into Egypt, a new life on the other side, free from Egypt. Paul sees that as the parallel to our baptism. Likewise, of course, in Romans 6, he sees it as a parallel to death and resurrection, as I mentioned. Actually, Romans 6, 3 and 4, I think it would be. Also, Peter, in 1 Peter 3, chapter 20, compares baptism to No one is going through the water of the flood and coming out safe on the other side. So these are all different images, some of them from the Old Testament, but not suggesting that baptism as we know it was practiced in the Old Testament or certainly was not commanded in the Old Testament. But it may have been practiced by Jews, baptizing proselytes before the time of John, and therefore the practice would be familiar to them and perhaps a bit offensive to them, that he was suggesting that they, as much as unclean Gentiles, had the need to be baptized, to be right. Anyway, yeah, we don’t have exact information about exactly when the Jews began to do that, but they did do it at some point, and there is some Old Testament precedent in the form of typology. Chuck from Spokane, Washington, welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, hi, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. Yeah, one question I had was going through John 14, verse 14. And I think I’ve heard you explain this before, but I would appreciate it again. Where it says, you know, Jesus says to the disciples, if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. And that’s just really difficult for me to understand what he was actually meaning there. Was he just talking to the disciples?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, he was talking to the disciples. By the way, I would point this out, too. You’re reading probably as I am. well, you’re reading something that uses the Alexandrian text. In the Textus Receptus, which is used by the King James and the New King James, it doesn’t say, if you ask me anything, it just says, if you ask anything in my name. And I think that although the Alexandrian text may, in fact, be more accurate in some passages, I think in this case, the Textus Receptus must be more accurate, because Jesus tells us we’re not supposed to ask him anything just a couple of chapters later, which is in the same conversation in John 16. He says in verse 23, in that day, you will ask me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, what did you ask the father in my name? He will give it to you. So so Jesus is teaching them. And like I said, it’s the same discourse. It goes through chapters 14, 15 and 16. The same discourse says, you’re not going to be asking me, you’re going to be asking my Father in my name. So in 1414, which you quoted, some manuscripts say, if you ask me anything in my name, but that wouldn’t be, that would go against what he said clearly in 16. And there are manuscripts that simply have him saying, what have you asked? Meaning, what have you asked the Father? What have you asked? If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. It also wouldn’t make sense, although some people pray this way, They pray to Jesus. I’ve heard people pray to Jesus. And then they say, in your name, I ask it. To my mind, that doesn’t make sense. To do something in his name means we’re claiming his authority and access to the Father. You know, we have no access to the Father except in the name of or by the authorization of Jesus. We come to the Father on the merits of Jesus to say, I’m asking you, Jesus, in your name. I mean, it’s an awkward thought, and it doesn’t agree with the rest of the teaching of Scripture. So I just want you to know that it says in some manuscripts, if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. I don’t think that’s probably in the original. It’s probably if you ask anything, meaning if you ask the Father in my name. I will do it. That is, God will authorize Jesus to do it, but you have to ask the Father. At least that’s what Jesus said two chapters later in rather unambiguous terms in John 16, 23. Now, perhaps what you found difficult is him saying, if you ask anything in my name, I will do it, as if to say, oh, you’ve got carte blanche to pray for whatever you want, and then you’ll get it. Well, it’s very clear that the rest of the Bible does not agree with that. Now, when we have in the New Testament and the Bible as a whole, but especially in the New Testament, the teachings of Christ and the apostles, it’s basically the whole thing is a discourse on a relationship with God. And part of that relationship is conversation. Part of that relationship is talking. And certainly part of that conversation is asking for things. Now, it doesn’t say everything about this subject in one passage. It’s in the whole of the New Testament or the whole of the teaching of Christ. that we get the holistic teaching about it. It’s true Jesus did say things like, you know, ask and you’ll receive. Everyone who asks receives. But then he goes on to make it very clear that he’s talking about asking for good things that the father can approve of giving you because he goes on to say what father of you, if his child asked for a fish, would give him a serpent. He says you earthly fathers know how to give good things to your children. How much more will your heavenly father give good things? To those who ask him. So, although Jesus sometimes seems to give you an absolute, whatever you ask for, you can have it. He qualifies it. Well, we’re talking about good things here, of course. No father would give his child a serpent, a deadly serpent, when he’s asking for something to eat. There are things a child might ask for that are foolish, and a good father would never give it to them. But there’s other things, too, in the whole discourse about this. I mean, it says in 1 John 5, 14, that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. Okay, so, and he’ll grant it to us. So we have to ask according to his will. It’s also the fact that David and James both said that we have to have a pure heart. David said, if I regard sin in my heart, the Lord will not hear me. And James said, The fervent effectual prayer of a righteous man avails much. So we have to be righteous. We have to be asking according to the will of God. We have to be asking for something that God regards to be good. We have to ask in faith. James said, ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavers is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he will receive anything from the Lord. So we have to ask in faith. We ask in Jesus’ name. We ask for what is good. And then in James also in chapter 4, he says, you have not because you ask not. which is suggesting that you would have many things if you asked for them. But he said the next word is you ask and do not receive because you ask amiss or for the wrong motives that you may consume it on your lust. So there’s a whole lot of qualifications here. Now, if someone says, oh, that’s just kind of making excuses for things not happening. Well, it’s not a matter of excuses. It’s a matter of talking about the dynamics of a real relationship with God where you ask and receive from him, just like a child and a father. A father will not give his child everything he asks for. If it’s not going to be good for the child, the father will withhold it. If it’s not according to the father’s will, if he doesn’t think it’s good, if the child has bad motives for asking, if the child has been bad and isn’t a righteous, obedient child, things may be withheld that he doesn’t need, but he wants. So, I mean, there’s lots of things about a relationship between a father and a child that qualify whether that child will get everything they want. But assuming… that all is well in that relationship. The child is living obediently. The child has faith in his father. The child is asking for something that’s really good for him. And it’s according to the father’s will and all of that. Well, then, yeah, whatever they ask for, God will give it. Now, some people say, well, why does he even say whatever you ask for then if it’s so qualified? Because he’s saying that there’s nothing that God will not give. if it is good for you, and if you ask in faith, and if these things are right between you and God, that there’s no limits to what you can ask for. Anyway, when you take just one verse and say, hey, this verse about prayer didn’t seem to come true for me, that’s because a person’s trying to form a doctrine about prayer from one verse instead of from the whole counsel of Scripture about how prayer functions in the context of a relationship between a child and a father. Hey, I need to take a break. I appreciate your call. We’ve got another half hour coming, but we also have a 30-second break or a minute break here. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener-supported. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 03 :
Toward a Radically Christian Counterculture, as well as hundreds of other stimulating lectures, can be downloaded in MP3 format without charge from the Narrow Path website, www.thenarrowpath.com. There is no charge for anything at the Narrow Path website. Visit us and be amazed at all you’ve been missing. That web address, www.thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 02 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour. Our lines are full, so I’m not going to give out the phone number right now, but if we have time, I’ll give it out later if the lines have opened up. We’re going to talk next to, let’s see who’s been there the longest. It is Marisha from Greenfield, New Hampshire. Hi, Marisha. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi. Hi. Hi. How are you?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, thanks.
SPEAKER 05 :
Good. I think if I can remember the question that I had. I have trouble just retaining what I read, and I have read a lot in the Bible. I listen to the station all the time, sometimes so much that it makes me a little more confused about myself. But it definitely brings revelation over and over. My question is, is it possible to have… voodoo-type things put on you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Can you come under curses?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I don’t think you can come under curses if you are a born-again Christian filled with the Holy Spirit, walking in the Spirit, and conducting… proper spiritual warfare, which, by the way, spiritual warfare is not as mystical as some people might make it think. Oh, I need to go to a seminar on spiritual warfare to figure out how to handle the devil. Actually, you know, the passages in the Bible of spiritual warfare are simply talking about the normal Christian life is a warfare, that we’re living out our lives in in a war zone against the kingdom of darkness, and that there are attacks against us. But like, for example, when we take the armor of God passage in Ephesians 6, and that’s not the only place where Paul talks about the armor of God, but that’s the main one. He talks about, you know, salvation is like a helmet to us. Righteousness is like a breastplate to us. Faith is like a shield to us. Truth is like a belt to us. Now, what he’s doing is, righteousness, salvation, faith, truth. These are ideas that are talked about throughout the scripture, both with and without the military metaphors. What he is saying is things like faith, truth, salvation, righteousness. Now, we know from many passages that these are the normal stock and trade of the Christian life. He’s saying, well, these, when it comes to the warfare we’re involved in, these serve Like armor for us. That is, it protects us. If you’re living a righteous life, if you’re walking by faith, if you’re living according to the truth, you know, if you’re saved, these things give you, in a sense, immunity. to the kinds of things that the devil would bring to destroy you. Now, I wanted to say, I need to clarify that destroy means to destroy you ultimately and spiritually. Certainly the devil can hurt you physically, although God can protect you from that too. Our spiritual armor is not intended to protect our physical bodies. It is spiritual protection. But there is also protection for our physical bodies, which is the angels. The Bible says that God has given his angels charge over you. And in their hands, they’ll bear you up, you know, lest you strike your foot against a stone. Or that’s Psalm 91. In Psalm 34, he says, the angels of the Lord encamps around about those who fear him and delivers him. So we have guarantees that God’s angels are there to deliver us physically and He’s talking about our foot being struck against a stone, even a minor injury. We are protected from that unless, of course, God wishes for us to be exposed to that, which is sometimes for our good. We see that in the book of Job. It doesn’t look like it’s for Job’s good when all these horrible things happen, but they do happen because God removes the protective hedge so that the devil can do some damage, some harm. But when we read the whole book, we find out it wasn’t for Job’s detriment. It was for his good. He was far better off at the end than he was at the beginning. In fact, he himself believed that would be true. And he said, when he has tried me or tested me, I will come forth as gold. And so this is true. I mean, a Christian has that faith, too. First Peter 1.7 tells us that the trial of our faith. being much more precious than of gold, works for us, you know, something good. And Paul says that too in 2 Corinthians chapter 4. He says our light affliction, which is but for a moment, works for us an eternal weight of glory. So physical afflictions are not necessarily bad for us. They may kill us, but even that’s not necessarily bad for us. Paul was in prison facing the possibility of death, and he said, He says, you know, I have a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. So to go somewhere far better isn’t all that bad. So as far as physical conditions, we don’t control those. The spiritual armor protects us spiritually, not physically. The angels protect us physically, and they do so insofar as God sees fit and wants to protect us or not. perhaps wants to test us with various things that the devil brings. After all, the devil is called the tester, the tempter. So their physical safety is in God’s hands. Now, curses that people place, you know, voodoo and things like that, usually are intended to come against the physical well-being of the person who’s targeted by it. I don’t really know that the voodoo curses or whatever have any intention to have impact on a person’s spiritual well-being. I don’t know that they don’t, but from all I know of it, it seems like it’s trying to kill somebody or make them sick or do something like that, harm them physically. Now, fortunately, we don’t have to worry about that because that’s God’s problem. We’re trusting God. You know, we pray, or at least we’re told to pray every day. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. And so God’s deliverance from the work of the evil one is all that we need to pray for. And then his angels are set to the task according to the will of God. It doesn’t mean nothing wrong will happen to us, but I don’t think it will happen to us because somebody curses. I don’t think that God, when we’re trusting him, allows somebody else’s curses, some kind of magical or demonic curses to afflict us. At least I don’t believe that. That doesn’t sound like anything the Bible would teach. But spiritually speaking, we’re protected, of course, as we walk in faith and truth and all those things, righteousness that are our armor. So we’re pretty well set up. We do live in a dangerous world, and there are certainly Christians who do not avail themselves of their resources, who do not maintain their righteousness, who do not live uncompromisingly with the truth, you know, who don’t use the shields of faith to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. Now, those are all spiritual protections. But that’s our responsibility in a sense. I mean, our responsibility is to make sure that we’re doing what God has given us to do to maintain our spiritual purity and walk with him. As far as our physical protection, we pray and let God take care of that. But I would never be afraid. If I heard that witches or voodoo practitioners or someone was trying to put curses on me, you know, there’s a verse in Proverbs. I have to say, I don’t remember the number, but it says something like like sparrows flitting about. So a curse undeserved will not alight. That’s not quite a quote, but it basically is saying that a curse that is not warranted. What is it? Twenty six to my wife just told me. You see, I’m not really the one who knows anything about the Bible here. My wife knows all the scriptures by heart. You know, she looks them up, but she does it awfully quickly. Yeah, here it is. It’s Proverbs 26.2. Like a flitting sparrow, like a flying swallow, so a curse without cause shall not alight. So, you know, if you’ve done nothing to deserve the curse that somebody’s trying to put upon you, it won’t land. It just won’t alight. It’s like a bird flying around that has no place to sit down. So that’s the best I know to answer. It’s a difficult one because the Bible doesn’t speak about that very much. But those are the things it does say.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, thank you. I just found myself so much more short-tempered and… Over the last five years.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, well, that’s going to be on you, not on a curse.
SPEAKER 05 :
No, it is. It is.
SPEAKER 02 :
It is on me. If you walk in the Spirit, you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh, Paul said in Galatians 5, verse 16.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s right, every day. And then you don’t have the buildup of walking in faith and knowing that you’re doing the faith. I have to work on that a lot.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Well, I appreciate your call. God bless you. Okay, let’s see who’s next. Sonny from Long Island, New York. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. A couple calls ago, you just said that the Lord would not give us something obviously that’s bad, right? So I was reading Psalm 109. It’s early morning, you know, before I head out to work and blah, blah, blah. Like the stuff that I was reading, like I’ve never read that type of I guess, prayer or, you know, for my enemies, if you could touch on that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, it’s a long psalm. Is there something particularly in the psalm that you’re wondering about? I mean, it’s got 31 verses.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, I mean, I don’t remember exact verses, but, you know, like he’s wishing things on their children and, you know, stuff like that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, there are. Yeah, I don’t know the verses in this psalm just glancing at it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some of those imprecations. There are a number of psalms and passages within psalms that are called imprecations, or certain psalms are called imprecatory psalms. Imprecations are curses, basically, or evil wishings. You’re wishing evil on somebody. And David and the other psalmists sometimes do wish harm on the bad people. But see, that’s different than what we were talking about. We were talking about God’s children. God won’t give to his children something that’s bad for them. To his enemies, he might. And it may be that, in fact, God desires to do that because it might even be good for them. It might bring them to repentance. But if it doesn’t bring them to repentance, it will at least end their career of evil doing, which is victimizing other people. God only does that. things that are ultimately net goods. But sometimes that includes punishing sinners, just like a good government will punish criminals, not because they hate the criminals, but because the criminals are doing harm to innocent people, and it’s the government’s role to get them out of the way, to get them out of circulation so they don’t hurt people. And that’s what God does, too. And the psalmist often prays for that. He’s praying about people. Generally speaking, these are not his own enemies. Some of them may be. But remember, if the psalmist is David, a lot of his own personal enemies hated him because, in his opinion, he felt they were against Israel. They were against God. He was the king, and they were trying to hurt God’s people by hurting the king. But David was not the kind of person who felt antagonism toward people who didn’t like him. Think of Saul, who tried to kill him. David had no antagonism toward him. In fact, when Saul died, David wept over that and mourned over what a great man it was that was lost. Absalom, his own son, betrayed him and tried to kill him. And when Absalom died, David wept over him too. David didn’t have a vindictive spirit toward people who were hard on him. But he did have a strong adverse feeling toward those who were against God. Most famously is that scripture, I think it might be Psalm 137, where David is talking about how he, or maybe it’s actually Psalm 139. He says in verse 21, Do I not hate them, O Lord? Well, let me start earlier. Psalm 139, 19. Oh, that you would slay the wicked, O God. Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men. For they speak against you, meaning God, wickedly. Your enemies take your name in vain. Now, notice he’s not saying anything they did to David. He’s saying what they do to God. They do wickedly and speak evil against God and take his name in vain. He says, do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate you? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with perfect hatred. I count them my enemies. Now, that’s interesting. They aren’t his enemies. They’re God’s enemies. But he says, if they’re your enemies, they’re mine. I’m taking your side, God. There’s a conflict here between you and them. They’re making themselves your enemies. Well, by doing that, they’re making themselves my enemies because I’m on your side. And I’m taking sides with you, God. Now, here’s not a case of David being angry at people for what they did to him. And this is typical, very typical of the imprecatory Psalms. David is not generally angry. concerned only or even sometimes at all with the fact that people are doing him wrong and therefore he’s angry at them. But they try to thwart God’s purposes and they curse God and they do evil things that God hates. And David just gets fed up with it and wishes God would take him out. So they wouldn’t do that anymore. And this is not his… selfish uh vindictiveness this is actually his zeal for god and it says in verse the next verse in psalm 139 search me oh god and know my heart try me and know my anxieties see if there’s any wicked way in me and lead me in the way everlasting interesting he says one of the most harsh things against the enemies of god and then immediately says search me god and see if i’ve got anything wrong in my heart do i have a right heart or wrong heart here In other words, David, he doesn’t want to have a wrong heart, and he suspects that he doesn’t. He welcomes God to check it out and see. But he’s not assuming he has a bad heart just because he’s angry at the bad guys. Anyone who loves good and who loves God should be capable of being angry at evil. But the problem we usually have is we get angry at people who do us wrong. And which is just another function of being totally selfish, narcissistic person. They did me wrong. How dare they? Well, who am I that they shouldn’t do me wrong? But they are displeasing to God. And that is inexcusable. You know, I can be angry at people because of their evil. People who are trafficking children. I’m angry at them. I’m not a child. I’ve never lost one of my children to them. I don’t even know anyone who’s lost a child. But it still makes me angry because they’re doing evil and harm. And it doesn’t touch me directly, except that I’m on God’s side about this. And I have the same anger toward him. He does. There are certain things that should make you angry because they do, in fact, make God angry. Now, the Bible says, do not let the sun go down on your wrath. It says in Ephesians 4, be angry and do not sin. So you can get angry without sinning. But he follows it by saying, don’t let the sun go down on your wrath. In other words, don’t stay angry. I mean, you get angry when you hear about it, but don’t just carry wrath around. You’re just going to be an angry person. That’s not good. So David and the psalmist often do break out with these imprecations against the evil. But generally speaking, it’s because they’re faithful to God and they love God and they hate the fact. There are people who are coming against God. So that’s how I think we need to understand that. Danny from the United Kingdom, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thank you. Thank you for having me. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 04 :
Fantastic. So I have a question about a partial preterist, the perspective.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 04 :
I think you’ve said before that a partial preterist like yourself believes that all the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled when Jesus came and also the destruction of the temple. So I had a question around two issues. Number one is Daniel 12, verse 2, where he talks about… May the spirit of the dust shall arise. Yes, when it says that many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And then also the timing of the book of Revelation that Afiti said you believe that it was written at the time of Nero. And I’ve studied a bit of church history. And until I listened to you, I did not realize that there was a possible other date here. I think it was written during the 1980 rather than 65 or 64 AD. So I just wanted you to speak a little bit more about how do you justify an earlier date of the authorship of the book of Revelation and also Daniel 12. That would be very helpful.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, sure. Now, by the way, I’ll probably talk more about Daniel 12 because somebody asked me about the early date of Revelation recently. It might have been yesterday on the show. I’m not sure. And I did go… Briefly over the facts. Let me take that one very briefly. There have always been conflicts in the church as to the date of the writing of Revelation. There have always been, or at least for a very long time, there’s been those who attribute the date of writing to the time of Nero, who died in 68 AD. And then there’s people who have attributed it to the time of Domitian. who reigned until 96 AD. Now, the attribution of the time of writing to Domitian’s time is largely based on a certain interpretation of a statement by Irenaeus, which is very famous, where it sounds like Irenaeus might be saying that John saw the vision on Patmos near the end of Domitian’s reign. And based on that, most of the later church fathers and maybe a lot of scholars in modern times feel that that’s when he wrote it. He wrote it during Domitian’s reign, which is, of course, much later than 70 AD and therefore would not make it a prediction about 70 AD. Now, others have felt that it was written during the reign of Nero, and I believe there’s at least three indicators in the book. And I’m a lot more interested in what the book itself tells me about its own writing. rather than what this or that church father or scholar thinks, because the author knew, and the scholar doesn’t have absolute knowledge about this. The author spoke of the temple in Jerusalem still standing in Revelation 11, 1 and 2. He predicts there that it’s going to be given over to the Gentiles, as it was in 70 A.D., and they trampled upon it. So… So anyway, the fact that it predicts that means it hasn’t happened yet. Also, it talks about the seven kings. Five have fallen. One now is. That is, at the time of writing, the sixth king was in position. And then there’d be another. If these kings represent emperors, as many people believe, but not everyone believes, then Nero is the sixth emperor. And therefore, since he said seven have fallen and one now is, meaning now at the time of writing, That would be Nero. And then, of course, the number 666 can be made to apply to Nero, and it cannot be made to apply to Domitian or any other person known to be around in that time. And yet John assumes… John assumes that the one whose number is 666 is around at that time. Because he says to his readers, let him that has wisdom figure out who this is. It’s the number of man’s name. I’ll give you the number. You figure out who it is. So, obviously, it was somebody living at the time that the wiser ones in the church could figure out who it was. So… All those point to, in my opinion, the time of Nero. Now, I won’t go into that anymore right now because yesterday, the first call on the program, I covered this material. So I’m going to have to move to your second question. Daniel 12. Yeah. Daniel 12, too, says, And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. Now, many people believe that’s talking about the resurrection of the last day. As a partial preterist, I do believe in a future resurrection of the dead. I believe Jesus spoke of it and Paul and maybe others too. It’s certainly in John’s Gospel, but it was Jesus recording it. It’s in Revelation. It talks about it too. So there is a future resurrection from the dead when Jesus returns. Is this talking about that or not? Well, possibly not. Because John 5, 28 and 29, Jesus does speak about the resurrection of the dead. John 5, 28 and 29, he says, Do not marvel at this for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth. Those who have done good to a resurrection of life, those who have done evil to a resurrection of condemnation. Now that, I believe, is a true resurrection of the dead. But he said all who are in the graves will come forth. This passage doesn’t speak of that. It says many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall. That means not all of them will, but many of them will. and some rise to shame and everlasting contempt. By the way, this expression, everlasting contempt, is found only one other place in the Old Testament, Isaiah 66, 24, where it talks about those who are in Gehenna, their worm does not die, and so forth. Jesus used that term also, but I don’t have time to go into it. I believe that’s referring to 70 A.D., and for very good reasons, which I explain in my book, Why hell? Or in my commentaries elsewhere. But I think very probably Daniel 12.2 is talking simply about the fact that in that generation, when Jesus came, the righteous remnant awoke to see and recognize the Messiah and came into eternal life, which we all have, the Bible says. But the others, that is the unfaithful, they awoke to their doom. And that was, of course, when the Romans came and destroyed them. It was to their doom. And so, you know, the Old Testament does speak of resurrection language when it’s not talking about an actual resurrection. For example, Ezekiel 37 talks about the dry bones coming into bodies and coming alive. But that’s referring to the birth of the nation of Israel from Israel. From the Babylonian Exodus. It’s not talking about actual resurrection of bodies. This kind of language is used a number of times in the Old Testament. And it’s even used in the New Testament. This idea of raising from the dead or coming alive or coming awake. There’s a hymn that Paul quotes in Ephesians 5, verse 14. And it says, Therefore he says, Now, he’s quoting, almost all scholars believe he’s quoting a hymn, a hymn of that time. Awake, you who sleep. Arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light. Now, it’s thought this might have been sung at baptisms. We don’t know for sure, but I think scholars have suggested this could be a baptismal hymn. Awake, you who sleep. Well, that’s pretty much what Daniel 12 says. Arise from the dead, figuratively speaking, and Christ will give you light. Well, that light comes when you’re born again. And so there is reason to question whether Daniel 12, too, is talking about the resurrection, even though I question that. In fact, I tend to not accept it as such. I do believe there are New Testament passages about the resurrection. Now, in saying that there are no Old Testament passages that are fulfilled after 70 A.D., I don’t know that I can make that statement as absolutely as I may have in the past. I mean, we don’t know if there’s a few. But Jesus said, when he’s talking about 70 A.D., in Luke 21, 22, he’s talking about the Romans coming to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D. He says, for these are the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Now, all things that would be written would be the Old Testament prophecies. In my opinion, the Old Testament doesn’t really look very far beyond the time of Christ or the destruction of Jerusalem. But the New Testament contains new prophecies. There are new prophecies of the second coming of Christ that are in the New Testament. So those were not fulfilled in 70 AD, in my opinion. So we do still have a future resurrection, future judgment, future new heavens, new earth, future second coming of Christ, and so forth. But I don’t know that we really have discussion of that in Old Testament prophets. I’m sorry I’m out of time, but I’m glad I got to your call. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let’s talk again tomorrow.
