The Narrow Path

Guest (Male): Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. We're proud to welcome you to the Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Steve has nothing to sell you today, but everything to give you. When today's radio show is over, we invite you to visit thenarrowpath.com, where you'll find topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and the archives of all the radio shows. Study, learn, and enjoy. We thank you for supporting the listener-supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.

Steve Gregg: 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 taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith and would like to bring them up for conversation, that's what we're here for. If you see things differently than the host or want to bring up an alternative viewpoint, we welcome that as well. Feel free to give me a call.

However, right now our lines are full, so take this number down and call in a few minutes. Lines do open up all through the hour. The number is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. A couple of announcements: I want to greet our new listeners in Waco, Texas. I think today we are going on for the first time on KBBW 1010 AM. This also reaches Round Rock and some other areas around there. I know I have a very good friend living in Round Rock. I hope he may be listening on here, though I think he listens on the app. Anyway, Waco, we welcome you to our network.

Then, this Wednesday night, we have something that happens once a month. It's a Zoom meeting that everybody's invited to participate in, the first Wednesday of each month at 7:00 PM Pacific Time. I'm in California, so we do things by Pacific Time here. But 7:00 PM Pacific Time this Wednesday night, the first Wednesday of the month. We do that for a couple of hours. It's a Q&A just like the radio show. So, if you like the radio show, you might like the Zoom meeting. You're welcome to join us for that.

That's a little different than the radio, partly because we're not confined to an hour. We don't have to buy the time at such a dear price on the internet as we do on the radio. Also, because we can see each other on Zoom, so that's kind of fun. Anyway, that's Wednesday night, 7:00 PM Pacific Time. Anyone's welcome to join. If you want to know how to do that, just go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. That is thenarrowpath.com. There's a tab there that says announcements. Scroll down to Wednesday's date, which is going to be April 1st. I'm not fooling. Check it out, and you can get onto the Zoom meeting and be part of that with us. All right, let's go to the phones and we'll talk first of all to Todd in Cresona, Pennsylvania. Hi, Todd, welcome.

Guest (Male): Hi, Steve. Thanks for your radio program. My question regards two biblical terms: atonement and reconciliation. Atonement is a term that's used most often in the Old Testament, if not exclusively, and reconciliation is used almost exclusively in the New Testament. My question basically is, would it be wrong because we often talk about the atoning work of Christ at the cross in terms of the sacrificial system?

Would it be more appropriate just to keep the word atonement in an Old Testament temple sacrifice system and then use the word reconciliation only in regards to what Christ has done at the cross, in addition to ransom and redemption, all those terms? Or is there some sort of foreshadowing in the temple sacrifice where you could say the atoning work is both in the Old Testament and can also apply to Christ at the cross, and so can reconciliation in some form be applied to things that are done in the temple? If that makes sense to you, I'll take my answer off the air. Thank you very much.

Steve Gregg: Okay, Todd. Thanks for your call. I think you're right that we think of atonement often in terms of the temple sacrifices, and we do find the word atonement in our English translations in the Old Testament a great deal when associated with the sacrificial system. The word atonement in the Old Testament comes from a Hebrew word that means to cover. To make atonement is to cover over sin.

But in the Greek Old Testament, the Greek word that's used to translate that, I believe, is the same as in the New Testament, and it does mean to reconcile. So, in other words, the same Greek word can kind of work both ways. Now, most of us are not reading our Bibles in Greek, but in English, and so the translators have their favorite conventions for translating these words.

I would not object to your suggestion. I wouldn't say that this is a better way to do things than is commonly done, but if you used the word reconciliation in the place of atonement in the New Testament, that would not be inaccurate. That wouldn't be wrong. The idea is that God is reconciling Himself to man and man to God through the death of Christ. So reconciliation is a good word, and it's also a legitimate translation of the Greek word.

I'm not against that. I don't have any problem using the word atonement, the alternative English word, with reference to Christ or the Old Testament. In fact, I think one thing positive about using it both places would be that it underscores the connection between the sacrificial system and Christ's own sacrifice of Himself. The animals were offered to make atonement for sins, especially on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

Christ's ministry is likened to the Day of Atonement in Hebrews chapter 9. So the idea that there is a connection in meaning and in significance between atonement through animal sacrifices in the Old Testament and what Christ accomplished through the sacrifice of Himself in the New Testament, that might be lost if we simply stopped using the word atonement with reference to what Christ did. I think there's something to be said for continuing to use that term.

Though, of course, if somebody were aware that the Greek word can mean both things, then it wouldn't be an issue. If we're talking about translating things for the average shallow Bible reader so that they don't have to think very deeply about things, if we use two different words in the Old and the New Testament, they might not see the connection. Though, of course, people who are a little more serious in their Bible study might learn that quickly enough. I don't know. So, I'm not going to put my stamp of approval or disapproval on changing the way we use the words in the New Testament, but I can see it clarifying things in some ways. But maybe it could obscure something too by not using the word atonement for the New Testament word. So, I can go both ways on that. To me, it wouldn't be a hill to die on if it went one way or the other. Michael in Santa Cruz, California, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Guest (Male): Hi, Steve. Long time no talk.

Steve Gregg: It's been a long time. Are you in Santa Cruz actually, or are you in New York?

Guest (Male): No, I'm hoping to move back to my home state of Connecticut, but I'm still in Santa Cruz.

Steve Gregg: All right. Well, I was just in Santa Cruz and I didn't see you.

Guest (Male): Yeah, I don't catch the show that often anymore. Did you have a home meeting?

Steve Gregg: No, we had a meeting in Pasatiempo. But go ahead, tell us what you're calling about today.

Guest (Male): All right. So, Billy Graham, in one of his sermons, defined a Christian as one who has accepted the Holy Spirit. I think by that definition, I experienced what I think of as what I could call that benevolent presence in church or at a Bible study meeting. But I know, probably from your point of view and the point of view of the Protestant faith in general, that would not be sufficient, right?

Steve Gregg: Well, you've often mentioned that when you go to Christian meetings, you've sensed you feel the Spirit of Christ or the Holy Spirit there, even though your own religion is Buddhism. You've said you kind of connect with Christians in that way. But I guess there's a couple of things I would say. Billy Graham probably did say that a person who's a real Christian has received the Holy Spirit. That is true.

But that's not the total definition of a Christian. The total definition of a Christian is one who is a follower of Jesus Christ. By a follower, we mean somebody who follows His teaching, that is, recognizes His authority and believes what He says. Because Jesus said, "Whoever continues in My word is My disciple indeed," in John 8:31. But also, someone who follows Him in their life, their life patterns are redirected into following His example, for example, and His teachings.

Obviously, as a Buddhist yourself, you have probably some ethics that are similar to those of Christ, and you definitely feel some kind of a spirit or good vibes or something when you're in a Christian meeting, which you might interpret as the Holy Spirit. I don't know, maybe what you feel is the Holy Spirit. I can't say. But I don't think a person is a Christian until they have received Christ for who He is.

Now, I realize that you think very highly of Jesus, and frankly, people in most religions do. Jesus is one of those few people that any religion wants to say anything bad about. The Buddhists like Him, Hindus like Him. Well, Jews don't like Him much often, but Christians and Muslims really think highly of Jesus too. But not everyone who thinks highly of Jesus is a Christian because they're not really following His teachings.

If you follow Jesus' teachings, then first of all, you're going to believe in God. As a Buddhist, you've always shied away from believing in a personal God. We've had many conversations, you and I, and you've never been willing to embrace the idea of a personal God. In that sense, you certainly don't believe what Jesus said about God, because He described Him as His Father, as one who's very attentive, one who knows the number of hairs on your head, one without whose will not a sparrow falls to the ground, a very involved God who's like a Father and who cares for us like a Father.

Your own Buddhist beliefs don't allow for there to be that kind of a God. In fact, you find it very difficult to even imagine such a God as that. But Jesus didn't imagine it; He came from God. He came to reveal the Father to us. So, in so far as you hold on to the Buddhist belief that there is no personal God, you're not actually a follower of Jesus. You might like Jesus, but so do the Buddhists and so do the Muslims and so do most secular people think highly of Jesus too. They don't like the church maybe or something like that, or Christianity, but there's very few people who want to say anything bad about Jesus.

So you're not really doing any special honor to Christ by thinking well of Him and feeling good around people who follow Him. I believe you could be having a spiritual experience in the midst of these Christian assemblies where you feel like you feel the Spirit of Christ. But the Bible says that we have to test the spirits to see whether they are of God because many false prophets and also therefore false spirits have gone out into the world.

The Bible says that we tell the difference between the Spirit of God and any other spirit by what that spirit conveys to us about Jesus, what that spirit witnesses or testifies about Jesus. You'll be a Christian when you surrender to Jesus Christ. But surrendering to Jesus Christ means you're not reserving the right to hold theology different than His. You're not reserving the right to pick and choose what He says and to decide whether you'll follow it or not.

A person can do that, any human being can do that, but they're not a Christian if they're doing that. That's the point. You're not really a Christian if you're not a devoted follower of Jesus Christ, because the word Christian never meant anything except that in the Bible. Yes, if you're a real Christian, you'll receive the Holy Spirit. If you're not a Christian and you feel some kind of a spiritual thing going on, it may be that the Holy Spirit is reaching out to you trying to testify to you about Christ.

Or it may be, if it isn't the Holy Spirit, it could be some kind of another spirit that's trying to make you feel good without Jesus. Demonic spirits would love it if you felt good without Jesus. We sometimes think, well, why would the devil want me to have a blissful, peaceful, happy experience spiritually? Well, he doesn't care if you're happy or not. The devil just wants you to be deceived.

Therefore, if you had a false spirit, you could be deceived and that would serve the devil's purposes well. So, you won't really have the Holy Spirit that the Bible talks about until you believe in God, because God is the Holy Spirit, and also until you believe Jesus. Because that's still something that you've been calling me for twenty years or something, you still don't seem to be willing to take that step, even though you enjoy going to churches and being around Christians. I don't blame you, I do too. But not all Christian fellowship is equally enjoyable, but it's true when you find people who are really following Jesus, they're generally speaking good people because that's what Jesus makes us be.

I'm not saying you're not a good person. You might be a very good person. I think many Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and even atheists can be decent folks and have good intentions. But that's having good intentions and being a decent person isn't what that's not the definition of a Christian. The definition of a Christian is one who's devoted to Christ. Again, that kind of devotion doesn't mean I like Jesus, I like a lot of things about Jesus, but I really don't believe what He believed about God. I don't really believe what He believed about Himself, but I like Him. No, that's not Christianity. A Muslim would say as much. A lot of atheists would say the same thing. So, it's a very different thing.

I'm going to say that what you say you've received the Holy Spirit, you may have received a spirit, but the Bible indicates there's a lot of spirits besides the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't just because of what you've told me about what you do and don't believe, I wouldn't identify that as the Holy Spirit, though I'd love it. I'd love it if that did happen with you. Of course, we've been praying for you for many years about that. Thanks for your call. Okay, Jimmy from Staten Island, New York. Hi, Jimmy, welcome.

Guest (Male): Hi Steve, can you hear me?

Steve Gregg: Mm-hmm.

Guest (Male): Okay. This is to do with security. I feel bad you're such a knowledgeable guy and I've learned so much through you and the people that call in, but I just want to ask you about Second Corinthians 5:17. It talks about, "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." I know that I asked you about being born again, that you say you could lose it and you could become unborn or whatever. But what do you say about being made a new creature? If we're made a new creature, God's given us a new heart, He's adopted us, He's put His Spirit within us. Are you saying that we can undo all that? Because when I look at all these verses, like repent and be baptized and you shall receive the remission of sins, whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. I see all these verses as assurance verses.

Steve Gregg: Well, they do give assurance. They do give assurance to people who are believing in Christ. Yeah.

Guest (Male): One more verse: First John 5:1. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Is born of God is the perfect tense, that's the previous action. Whosoever believeth is the present tense and it makes a world of difference. But I'll take your explanation over the air.

Steve Gregg: Yeah. Well, I mean, you made a very good point. Whoever believes, that's present tense, is born of God or has been born of God in the past. I believe that. If somebody has been born of God and well, let's just put it this way: if somebody is a believer, they have been born of God. I say the same thing. But you seem to be saying that if they're born of God, they can't ever lose that life that they received at birth because they're a new creation and they've got this new heart.

Whenever a baby is born, and this is the illustration the Bible is using is that of a birth of a child, when a baby is born, it does have a certain inclination. It wants to eat, it wants to breathe, it wants to live, it has a will to live and so forth, and that's part of the nature of being a living being. But sadly, tragically, there are people who were born like that and when they get older, they don't want to live anymore. They don't want the responsibilities of life. They don't want the pains and the sorrows of life.

Tragically, some of them take their own life. In other words, being born and receiving a new life is not a guarantee that you'll never die. Now, the Bible says if you're believing in Christ, you won't die. But that's because believing in Christ is what confers to us life. Christ's life is conferred to us through believing. That's stated everywhere in scripture. There's always the connection between believing and being saved, believing and having life, eternal life.

So as long as a person is a believer and a follower, believing I'm not sure how you understand believing, and I know how some people do. Some people think believing means somebody just convinced you that Jesus is the real deal and so they said, okay, I believe it. And they may believe that the rest of their life. But that's not what the devil believes it too, and he's not a Christian. Believing that Jesus is the real deal isn't what makes you a Christian.

It's your surrender to Christ. It's your repenting of your rebellion against Him. I mean, if Jesus is the real deal, He's the real what? He's the King. He's the Lord. He's the Master. That's what the real deal is. If you believe Jesus is those things, well, then as long as that's just something that's in your brain but doesn't have any impact on your will, you're about the same as the devil in that particular belief because he believes Jesus is all those things too.

But what the devil doesn't do is surrender. He knows Jesus is the King, but he wants to live in rebellion against Christ as King. And that's what many people do. There's probably a very large percentage of people in the United States profess to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died and rose again and all that stuff, and they may really believe it in their heads. But that doesn't make a person a Christian.

What makes a person a Christian is that they surrender to that truth. They lay down their arms, they stop being rebels against the crown, and they become loyal followers of Jesus. That's what a person becomes a Christian, at least in the Bible no one became a Christian any other way than that we know of. It is certainly what Jesus said: "If anyone comes after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me."

Lots of people believe that Jesus is what He said He is, but they don't want to deny themselves or take up a cross or follow Him, and therefore they're not Christians. Jesus said if a person won't forsake all that he has, he cannot be My disciple. If a person comes to Me and doesn't hate his father and mother and wife and children and his own life also, he can't be My disciple. In other words, there's a lot of people who believe in Jesus in some academic sense, they believe propositions about Jesus.

But Jesus said, yeah, but if you believe Me, then that means you've got to surrender, you've got to deny yourself, you've got to take up a cross, you need to follow Me. Not everyone does that. So, now when someone is born again, that's what they are inclined to do. They want to follow Jesus. If they don't want to, they're not born again. You made a good point. You're a new creation. If you're born again, you have a new heart and that new heart wants to follow Jesus.

That's wonderful. The problem is, there have been many people in history, some of them were actually followers of Jesus in His lifetime, who at one point wanted to follow Jesus, wanted Him be their Lord, wanted to be on His team loyally. And then later they ran off. They decided, yeah, I'm tired of this, I don't want to do this anymore. And not only did that happen among some of the people who followed Jesus because we read about that happening.

I'm not just thinking of Judas, I'm thinking of John 6:66 where it says from that time forth many of Jesus' disciples didn't follow Him anymore because they didn't like what He was saying. But they were His disciples before that. So a person can be a disciple wanting to follow Jesus at some point, but they can change their mind. I have known in my own lifetime people who were very zealous followers of Christ for years and then changed their mind, went the other way.

The fact that the Bible warns against that so many places. Jesus warned against it, Paul warned against it, Peter warned against it, the writer of Hebrews continually warns against it. It looks to me like the letters to the seven churches in Revelation warn against it. It seems like everyone who wrote the Bible, at least everyone who wrote the New Testament, warned against the danger of falling away.

So, if we say, well, I don't see how a person is really born again could ever fall away. Well, you may not be able to see how it is, but all the writers of the scriptures believed it was a danger and a possibility. So, I do too. That's kind of where I'm at. I'm not trying to figure it out from my own logical way of thinking how could somebody fall away? I'm kind of looking at what the Bible says.

Jesus describes people who fall away when persecution comes, who were who received the gospel previously and so forth. So, you know, I'm not just I'm not making stuff up. In fact, I was raised in a church that taught that once you're saved, you can never lose your salvation. The problem was finding anything in the Bible that literally said that and finding a way to deal with all the passages that warned Christians not to fall away and lose their salvation with that view.

It's clearly is not the view that the Bible teaches, but I was taught it growing up and apparently you were too. But I don't see it anymore. I appreciate your call very much. It's good talking to you, brother. Let's see. Rich in Everett, Washington. Welcome, Rich. Good talking to you.

Guest (Male): Hi, Steve. Can you hear me okay?

Steve Gregg: Yes, I just noticed how late it is. We're going to have a break coming up, and so go ahead and give me your question. If I have to, I'll hold you over the break.

Guest (Male): Oh, thanks, Steve. I had a specific question about a specific verse. It's Romans 12:2 and I'd like to go ahead and read it for those who might not have it memorized. Is that okay?

Steve Gregg: Sure.

Guest (Male): Yeah, out of the NAS it says, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good, acceptable, and perfect." And I had a couple of questions on this verse. I went to your website and listened to your verse-by-verse teaching and that's a great resource, by the way. Thank you so much for having that up there. Really appreciate it.

And my specific question is about the word prove. I looked it up in the concordance. I can't read Greek, but I can kind of look up a word and see where it's used in other contexts or maybe translated differently. And that word is sometimes translated test, prove, examine, or try. And I guess I had a kind of a three-part question about the word prove. I'll be quick because I know the break's coming up. I mean, to try, to test, right?

We read in Matthew and Luke where Jesus responds to the devil, "Do not put your Lord your God to the test." But here we're told to test and have something to do with the will of God, which is seems kind of important and consequences seem really important here. So I'm wondering, how do what is the difference? What is the difference between testing God but testing what the will of God is?

Steve Gregg: Well, I think testing in this sense probably has the sense of assaying, like when you assay gold or silver to get the real value of the gold and the silver at the expense of the dross that you get rid of. Testing and proving is used that way in the scripture too. And I think possibly that's what Paul's saying. Paul's saying, you know, we've been told what the will of God is, what's good and perfect and so forth.

And if you become transformed by the renewing of your mind, your life will prove that that's what's good and that's what's perfect. I mean, it'll it'll show the value of the will of God and it'll prove that God's will was was right and good. I will allow that the word could have other meanings than that, but this is how I've always understood it. I don't know how to wouldn't know how to explain it another way necessarily.

I don't know if that's helpful or not, but anyway, I hope it maybe. We got to take a break. You're listening to the Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. We have another half hour coming immediately. Don't go away. I'll be back in 30 seconds.

Guest (Male): Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. We're proud to welcome you to the Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Steve has nothing to sell you today, but everything to give you. When today's radio show is over, we invite you to visit thenarrowpath.com, where you'll find topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and the archives of all the radio shows. Study, learn, and enjoy. We thank you for supporting the listener-supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.

Steve Gregg: Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour taking your calls. Once more, if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith you'd like to raise for conversation on the air, maybe you see things differently from the host and would like to discuss that on the air, feel free to do so. We do have a couple of lines open now and if you want to join us, you can call 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. All right, our next caller today is Gill from Long Island, New York. Gill, welcome to the Narrow Path.

Guest (Male): Oh, praise the Lord. I'm glad that Christ is our righteousness. Amen. Thank you. I love you, Steve. In the Catholic Bible it reads, "The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name will teach you everything and will remind you of everything that I have told you." And I first started reading the Bible in '91, I started reading the NIV, I like the translation. It says, "But the counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name will teach you all things and will remind you of everything that I have said to you." Would you say that the Holy Spirit could also be called counselor as well? Because I find that comforting as well as the comforter in the KJV.

Steve Gregg: Yeah. Well, the word in the Greek is *parakletos* and it means from *para*, a particle that means alongside, and *kaleo* or *kletos*. *Parakletos* is one who's called alongside. Specifically, it referred to a legal counselor, that is, a defense attorney. Actually, Jesus is called a *parakletos* in First John chapter 2 where it says, "If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father." Again, the word advocate is *parakletos*.

But Jesus, in the passage you're talking about in John 14 or maybe 16, He talks about the *paraklete* several times in 14 through 16 of John. But He's talking about the Holy Spirit as a *parakletos*. In fact, He said, "I'm going to send you another *parakletos*," because Jesus is a *parakletos*. He's alongside us, defending us as it were. Now another one's coming, the Holy Spirit.

Now, yeah, I think the King James uses the word comforter. And then I think you also read what the New American Standard, I think, or you read one that said advocate. And now you've read one that says counselor. Advocate and counselor, both of them work well for the idea of one who one who stands at your side in court, for example. Someone who's got your back, somebody who's helping you in a in a hard situation really.

And that's what the Holy Spirit is, and Jesus was that too. Both are called the *parakletos* in separate passages, different contexts. So, so you like the word comforter, I think you said. Well, it is it is comforting. It's comforting when you're in a crisis to have somebody who's very adequate to stand alongside and help you, maybe take take your case on themselves and be your defender. That's kind of what that's kind of what it is.

So, some translators would agree with the idea of a comforter, but the word does have a range of meanings. But yeah, in different translations, you find translators have different ideas about what their preference would be in translating that word. I think the idea of a legal advocate, a defense attorney, is a very common understanding of what that word means. All right, let's talk to Bob in Portland, Oregon. Bob, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Guest (Male): Thanks for taking my call, Steve. I have a question with what we normally call the rapture chapter by the dispensationist, First Thessalonians 4:13 through 18. And my question is on John 5:28 and 29. Wouldn't that be the same event? Where it talks about the hour coming when all will come up?

Steve Gregg: Absolutely. Yeah, that'd be the same event.

Guest (Male): How do you get around that? I believe that the dispensationist think that is two different events, don't they?

Steve Gregg: Well, what they believe, dispensationalists believe there's two different resurrections. One of them they believe will occur before the tribulation. Now, they believe there's a seven-year tribulation coming and that the rapture will occur before the seven-year tribulation. So the church, in their opinion, will be removed. This will only involve the righteous, the righteous dead and the righteous living. And they think that's what Paul's referring to in First Thessalonians chapter 4.

But then they believe there's after the rapture and the resurrection of the saints, they believe there's a seven-year tribulation, then the second coming of Christ to Earth, then a thousand-year millennium, and then after the thousand-year millennium, they believe there's the resurrection of those who are not Christians. So they believe that we will be resurrected 1007 years prior to the resurrection of the unsaved.

And I don't believe the Bible teaches that anywhere. I understand the theology because I was part of it myself, I taught it myself at one time. But you I think you brought up John 5:28 and 29 where Jesus said, "Do not marvel at this, the hour is coming." Okay, a particular point in time is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice. Now, are we talking about the righteous or the unrighteous here?

He says all who are in the graves will hear His voice and shall come forth, those who've done good to the resurrection of life. So, okay, so He's talking about the resurrection of the righteous ones. But then He says, "And those who've done evil to the resurrection of condemnation." Oh no, He's talking about the resurrection of the bad ones. Well, He's talking about both. And He says both will happen in the same hour.

There's actually nothing in the Bible that says that the wicked will be raised at a different time than the righteous. Paul said, when he was on trial in Acts chapter 24 verse 15, he said, "I believe as the Jews do about this." He said that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the righteous and the unrighteous. So he believed in one resurrection of the dead and it would include the righteous and the unrighteous. That's no wonder Paul thought that, that's what Jesus said in John 5:28 and 29.

Jesus also said in Matthew 25 verse 31, he says, "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory and all His holy angels with Him, then He'll sit on the throne of His glory, He'll call all the nations before Him, and then He'll separate them into sheep and the goats. He'll send the sheep into eternal life and the goats into everlasting punishment." So the good and the bad come at the same time. And when is that? He said, "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory and all His holy angels with Him." Then He's going to call all the nations, everyone, to Him and then He's going to separate them. Some are saved, some are not.

So this is the very same thing that Jesus taught in John, very same thing Paul taught, very same thing that frankly the Bible teaches everywhere. There's actually no place in the Bible that suggests that the righteous will have a physical resurrection at one point in time and then some time years later, maybe centuries later, the unrighteous would. Jesus said all that will happen in one hour, in the same hour. So that's I so I just disagree with those who'd place those events at different times.

Guest (Male): So they would think that Lazarus would be raised in the rapture, right? Jesus' friend Lazarus?

Steve Gregg: Yeah, Lazarus would be raised in the well, in the resurrection.

Guest (Male): Yeah, but then it says when Mary talks about Lazarus being raised on the last day, doesn't that kind of do away with the rapture chapter?

Steve Gregg: No, no, that's what that is the last day. When when the dead rise, when the dead rise in the rapture, that's the last day.

Guest (Male): That would make the rapture of First Thessalonians or for dispensationists that doesn't make sense then, would it?

Steve Gregg: I'm not sure what you're getting wrong here. No, the rapture and the resurrection happen on the last day. That's what Jesus said, that's what Martha said. Yeah.

Guest (Male): So it would not do away with the dispensationists' belief that there's two resurrections, two final days, I mean.

Steve Gregg: Oh yeah, that definitely refutes the dispensational view. Absolutely. Yeah.

Guest (Male): Okay. That's what I ran across. I was raised in a dispensationist church, but I am not anymore. When I ran across that chapter 5:28, 29 and Lazarus being raised on the last day, it kind of they can't put them together. It doesn't jive.

Steve Gregg: Yeah, that rattled me when I was a dispensationalist too. In fact, that's one reason I'm not one now. But yeah, you're right. I mean, read the Bible and it's interesting how someone said it's interesting how much light the Bible sheds on the commentaries. The commentators aren't inspired; the Bible is. So that's why you can be a dispensationalist as long as you're listening to the commentators. Read the Bible for yourself with an open mind and you'll obviously have to see where their system is flawed.

Guest (Male): Okay, well thank you.

Steve Gregg: Okay, Bob. Good talking to you. Bye now. All right, we're going to talk next to Neil in Portland, Oregon. We do have a couple lines open if you want to try to get through before the hour is over. The number is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737 and Neil from Portland, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Guest (Male): Hi, Steve. There's been a lot of chatter about the Ethiopian Bible which includes, I think, 81 books instead of 66. But a couple of points that I was wondering what you thought about is: first thing is it talks more about the church within yourself and the and your own Spirit feels rather than a so-called church or organized religion. That's one point that is interestingly different.

And the second point is about the end times where it matches more with your kind of stand of one second coming, not the dispensational, right, the other view, amillennialism or partial preterism. And it also says that there isn't really any kind of tribulation other than it's all spiritualized in the kind of demonizing of the human spirit and mind as we see all all around us, morality decline and all that stuff. What do you make of it? Is that I mean and and again they say that Ethiopian Bible isn't the one that is influenced by the Roman, you know, Nicaean Council and all that stuff. They preserved it from 400 AD, I think. Am I correct? Or something like that.

Steve Gregg: Definitely in the 400s, yeah.

Guest (Male): Yeah. So, what do you think about this? Is there any credence to this? Which is more comforting? I know either of these views are okay. Amillennialism, partial preterism also says, "Okay, we're going through hell." Same does Ethiopian Bible. Only dispensationalists are saying, "Ah, kumbaya, we'll be out of here." Right? What do you make of all this?

Steve Gregg: Well, yeah, so you seem to be saying that the Ethiopian Bible with it has additional books that are not in Protestant Bibles and it's in those books that it teaches a different eschatology. Is that what you're telling me? Because I haven't read those books. I I don't have an Ethiopian Bible.

Guest (Male): Yeah. So, I haven't read it. What I did was just a quick look-see around some literature and also, if you believe it or not, AI gives you a better take on it than anybody else who hasn't read. So, it's hard to read all these. First of all, English translations are not easily available, right? So, this comes from the research. These two points.

Steve Gregg: Okay, I wanted to know, do you have an Ethiopian Bible? Do you use one?

Guest (Male): No, I don't.

Steve Gregg: Okay, because I don't either and I don't even know what I don't even know what books they have. I know they have the book of Enoch, and neither the Protestant neither the Protestant nor the Catholic Bible have the book of Enoch. The Catholic Bible has about seven books more than the Protestant Bible has, but they're all from what we call the intertestamental period. That is, the last book written by a prophet in the Old Testament was Malachi.

Then there were 400 400 years from Malachi till till, you know, the Gospels came. So in that 400-year period, we call the intertestamental period, a lot of books were written that were not written by prophets and therefore they were not inspired. They were religious books written by Jews, and seven of them are included in the Catholic Bible, but Protestants don't receive them because they're not written by inspired writers.

But then the Ethiopian Bible has even more obviously, has like eight more eight more books. And I don't know what books they have. Again, I know they have Enoch which neither of the other two Bibles have. But but I would assume, though you could correct me because I don't know this, I would assume that the extra books the Ethiopian Bible has are also from the intertestamental period. I you know I doubt that they have any more prophets than the than the Hebrew Bible had.

Guest (Male): That's my take, but they say Enoch, Jubilees, Maccabees, and then there is a book of Covenant, which is Te-Kalia, Book of Clement, and the Letter of Jeremiah and Baruch.

Steve Gregg: Now, yeah, so some of those are in the Catholic Bible too. All I can say is I do not know much of anything at all about the Ethiopian Bible and and which books they include. My guess is that they, like the Apocrypha books in the Catholic Bible, I assume they're probably mostly intertestamental books. But the main thing you're saying is that the Ethiopian Bible, whether it's in those extra books or not, does not teach that there'll be a literal seven-year tribulation or rapture before the tribulation, I think is what you're pointing out.

But you see, you don't need the Ethiopian Bible to discover that because the Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible also don't mention a seven-year tribulation and certainly don't mention a pre-trib rapture. So, you know, I suppose someone reading the Ethiopian Bible could get the same doctrines about that that we'd get from a Protestant or Catholic Bible. And unless some of the books that are included in the Ethiopian Bible have some eschatology in them. I don't know that they do or would, but I wouldn't be overly concerned about it since they I doubt that they have any books that are written by prophets.

The prophets, I think the Hebrew Bible contains all the books that were written by prophets. And then the New Testament is as it came to be understood in the in New Testament times, is written by apostles, not prophets. So, I don't think we have any apostolic writings except for the ones I don't think they exist except for the ones that are in our New Testament. So anyway, yeah, I mean, I can't really address the Ethiopian Bible. But if you're saying that when you read the Ethiopian Bible you don't get the pre-tribulation rapture, well, I'd agree you don't get that reading any Bible that I know of. So, appreciate you sharing that. I don't have any special knowledge about that version of the Bible. All right, let's let's talk to Chris from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Chris, welcome.

Guest (Male): Hey, pastor. I've been listening to you for a long time. I missed you when you were in Minneapolis a few months ago in that metro area. Anyway, I have two questions. One's been irking me and we'll get to the second one if you feel you have time. But the first one is I called out my men's group Bible study teacher, we're in the book of John, and also our associate youth pastor who fills in preaching now and then. They both just pray to Jesus, not our Father. They're just like, "Dear Jesus, thank you for dying. We love you," etc., etc. So when we're in the book of John in our Wednesday night studies, I'm like, call them out. I go, "Why do you show me in the Bible where it says to pray to Jesus?" and we were just ending John 16 verse 26 where it talks about "you'll talk to me, but then you won't talk to me any longer, and I will not ask my Father or our Father," excuse me, whatever, "on your behalf." And I don't have my Bible open in front of me, but I'm calling about just general...

Steve Gregg: No, I know the passage. I know the passage. It's a very significant one with reference to what you're talking about. So, what was your question?

Guest (Male): My question is, no one can answer. They're just like, "Well, you know, the Father and Son and Spirit are one." I said, "Yeah, but they have different roles." It seems to be all about praying to the Father and when the disciples asked him how to pray, he said, you know, it started out what...

Steve Gregg: I hear you. Okay, I get your point. So you're just asking for my affirmation and I give it. It is true, the Bible nowhere says that we should pray to Jesus. It is kind of a tradition of evangelicals to pray to Jesus, and maybe not just evangelicals. I think probably Catholics in medieval times, some of the monks and stuff prayed to Jesus. Like if you read some of the devotional writers of the medieval times, some of them pray to Jesus.

But the you're right, the Bible does not tell us to pray to Jesus, and Jesus Himself told us to pray to the Father. And when He said, "When you pray, say 'Our Father, which art in heaven,'" He didn't say, "When you pray, say 'Jesus.'" He said say, "Our Father, which art in heaven." Now, Jesus also said in John 14:6 that no one comes to the Father except through me. In other words, he he gave us access to the Father so we can talk to the Father ourselves.

And then you mentioned John 16 where Jesus actually says in verse 23, "In that day," meaning after He's gone and sends the Holy Spirit, "in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly I say whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give it to you." So Jesus is saying when I'm gone, you won't be praying to me, you'll be praying to my Father. And as you pointed out, verse 26 He said, "In that day you will ask in My name," He's just said a few verses earlier you'll ask My Father in My name, so you're not asking Jesus, you're asking the Father in His name. "And I do not say to you that I will pray to the Father for you, for the Father Himself loves you, because you've loved Me and I have believed and you've believed that I came forth from God."

So everything Jesus taught about prayer was to pray to the Father. Now, when we see the apostles praying, there's a few examples of their prayers recorded. Acts chapter 4, we have the apostles praying in verse 24 and following. It says that the apostles got together to pray and says, "So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said, 'Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them.'"

Now, they they speak to Lord. Now, that of course Jesus is Lord, so one could say, well, maybe they're talking to Jesus. But as you read what they say to the Lord they're speaking to in verse 27, "For truly against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the tribes of Israel were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done."

So they they're speaking to the Lord and they refer to the Lord's holy servant Jesus. So they're obviously talking to the Father. They're not talking to Jesus. Paul likewise, when he prayed, he tells us how he prays in Ephesians chapter 3. Let me find it here. I actually use a real Bible here so I have to turn the pages here. Ephesians 3:14, Paul said, "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family of heaven and earth is named."

So Paul prayed to the Father. Well, no surprise, Jesus told us to pray to the Father. The apostles prayed to the Father. There's only two examples after the Ascension of Jesus where we read of any Christian speaking to Jesus or praying to Jesus. One is when Stephen was dying. He said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." So he addressed Jesus there. And the last verse in the Bible, John on Patmos says, "Even so come quickly Lord Jesus."

So those are those are prayers offered to Jesus. They are unusual because Jesus told us to pray to the Father and also the apostles did pray to the Father. But these two occasions, Stephen and John, spoke to Jesus. But there's one thing those two occasions had in common: they were both seeing visions of Jesus at the moment. In other words, they were looking at Jesus and they spoke to Him. It apparently it's not forbidden to speak to Jesus, but they were looking at Jesus, they were seeing visions of Christ and spoke to Him.

That's fine. But those were not normal prayers. I mean, when Jesus said, "When you pray, say 'Our Father,'" some would say, well, can't I pray to Jesus? I just want to say, why do you prefer to do it that way than the way He told you to do it? I mean, I have to say, many people would say, "I don't have much success in my prayers, you know, I never get any answers." Well, are you praying the way the Bible tells you to pray?

I'm not saying you'll always get answers even if you do, but if if you want answers and you're not getting them and you're not praying the way Jesus said to pray, that might be part of the reason. You know, I'm not sure why you'd want to pray a way that Jesus said not to pray. It seems to me you want to have as much advantage to your prayers being answered as possible. I would follow what Jesus said for even if there was no advantage in it, simply because I'm a follower of Jesus. I'm a disciple of Jesus, so I do what He says.

So I always pray to the Father. Now, you're right, I'm in many Christian groups where people pray to Jesus, and I don't call them to I don't take them to task about it. I don't think God's offended by it, but I think that they're simply I want to know why. Why does somebody want to pray to Jesus when He said to pray to the Father, when the apostles did? And I think many people would say they're intimidated by the Father.

I've known actually Christian people who said they do not like to think about God as Father because their father was abusive, their father was awful, father is a negative to them. So they think of Jesus as the one who's sympathetic toward them, He's the one who's on their side, and the Father they think is not. And they they feel like the Father is the angry one and Jesus was the nice one who kind of intervened to, you know, to accommodate God's anger against us so that we could be receive grace.

No, the Bible doesn't say that Jesus was the one who loved us; it's the Father who loved us. God so loved the world that He sent His Son. Jesus was sent by God the Father because God loved us. So, I mean, if you've got a an image of God as someone who's angry and hateful, you're thinking of God the wrong way, certainly thinking of Him differently than Jesus did. And in and you know, it's a terrible thing that many people have had bad fathers and so when they think of God as a Father they think of something negative.

But no doubt that's the devil trying to ruin your relationship with God by making you associate Him with a bad father. There are good fathers and Jesus said that the Father is one of them. And so if people say, well, I don't feel comfortable praying to God as Father, but Jesus seems friendly, Jesus' kind of on my level, and then there's others who feel even uncomfortable talking to Jesus, they want to go to His mom.

You know, I don't feel that Jesus is going to listen, I maybe His mom is more sympathetic, you know. I mean, how far can you get from what Jesus came to do and still call yourself a Christian? Jesus came to bring us to the Father. No one comes to the Father but by me. He wants us to come to the Father. The Father sent the Son so that He would restore our relationship as prodigals with our Father. That's God's intention, that's what Jesus came for, and yet some people say, "Well, I don't know, I don't trust the Father, I think I'll talk to Jesus instead."

Well, Jesus will send you to the Father. Well, I'm not sure I trust Jesus, I'm going to talk to His mom instead. Well, why? Why not just talk to the Father? That's the privilege you have because of Jesus. You can talk to the Father and that's what it's supposed to be. So, I mean, I would say if your pastor and associate pastor pray to Jesus, I think they were just I don't know, honestly, I don't mean to say they're they're not correctly instructed, but I think a lot of people were not correctly instructed when they became Christians.

They just learned to pray to Jesus and it just became a habit instead of praying to God the Father. Now, if they say, but Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit are one, well, in some sense they are, but apparently not in the sense that we're instructed to pray. We're Jesus specifically said you ask the Father in My name. Okay, so Jesus authorizes us to come to the Father, and the Father accepts us as if we were Christ because we're coming in His name. But it's still the Father we're talking to.

And you're right, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, even if they're all God, they don't all have the same function. And when it comes to prayer, it's very clearly laid out what the function is. You pray to the Father in the name of Jesus, that means with His authorization, and the Father receives you as He receives Christ. I'm sorry we're out of time. We have callers waiting. I wish I could get to them, but that's how the clock works. Call tomorrow, we're on Monday through Friday at this same time. I'd love to talk to all of you. You've been listening to the Narrow Path. We are listener-supported. You can find out how to help us out if you go to our website thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.