The Narrow Path

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we are live for an hour each weekday afternoon taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith and you would like to raise those for conversation on the air, well, I am here for that purpose. We will be glad to talk to you about those things. If you disagree with the host on something, you are always welcome to call about that as well and balance comment.

We have one line open right now at this number: 844-484-5737. That number again, any time during the coming hour you can call and maybe find a line open: 844-484-5737. So let's go right to the phone lines now and talk to Peter from Bedford in the UK. Hi Peter, good to hear from you again.

Peter: Hi Steve, thanks for taking my call. Steve, I have been following some of the recent discussions and debates that have been posted online and it is noticeable it seems to surround topics about Jerusalem, Israel, and the New Covenant. My question is, I know as Christians and especially in Jesus' ministry, he was not trying to be any political figure and his focus was on the Kingdom of God.

But do you think because of the current political climate and because theological views, especially about Israel, are being used or tied to modern political events, do you think as Christians we are being pressured or forced into taking theological views on Israel? I guess how should believers navigate that, especially as theology and politics seem to be tied together, especially on the topic of Israel?

Steve Gregg: Well, I agree that Israel is an important theological subject. That is if people have a misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches about Israel, that is going to be problematic in their theology and probably in some of their ways of thinking about things depending on which direction their theology goes askew. If somebody has the theological position that God is always in favor of the Jewish people no matter what they do, well, then they haven't gotten that from the Bible because you can tell by reading the prophets in the Old Testament that that was not true.

Israel did all kinds of things that God told them if they don't stop doing, he is going to wipe them out. In fact, all the way back in the time of Moses, Moses said that in Deuteronomy 28 and in Leviticus 26 and so forth. So there has never been a time in the Bible times when God was always on the side of Israel. If someone thinks that God is necessarily on Israel's side no matter what they do now, there must be a different God on the throne than there was when the Bible was written and a different Israel, apparently.

But there are people who think that we are supposed to be on Israel's side no matter what they do. Now, I am not against Israel, by the way. I am not anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Israel. But I don't think that there is anything in the Bible that says we are supposed to be on Israel's side particularly no matter what they do. God certainly was not on their side when he sent the Babylonians in to take them into captivity for 70 years. He was not on their side when he sent the Romans in to disperse them around the world 2,000 years ago.

Is he on their side now? Well, some people say so, but that is where theology can confuse one. If people don't understand that what the Bible says about Israel is found in certain passages of the Old Testament that were fulfilled long ago and don't have any end times fulfillment intended, people who don't understand their Bibles don't pay attention to what the context is of a passage and things like that. They are going to get very confused and that can lead them to think if there is a conflict between Israel and somebody else, it doesn't matter who the somebody else is, we have to be on the side of Israel.

Well, that's not a safe position to take about any nation, even America. I mean, I'm an American. I'm a loyal American citizen, but my top loyalty is to Jesus Christ and to the Kingdom of God. If the time came when America was at war with Jesus Christ or persecuting the church as an official policy and things like that, I'm going to take the side of Christ against even the nation that I belong to and which I have greatly appreciated as a nation. The same would be true of Israel or any other nation.

We don't have to take any political positions based on our theology. We need to take moral positions and that's all I would do. If someone wants me to take a side for or against Israel or for or against any nation in a conflict, I'm going to say give me a complete readout of their moral behavior. Have they been acting justly or unjustly? Are they acting by standards that Christians can approve of or not? I'll make some kind of a decision based on that.

Almost every day somebody brings up this idea of how we are supposed to respond to Israel's wars or even America's wars with some of Israel's enemies or whatever. My position is it's not laid out in scripture anywhere what we're supposed to do about conflicts between secular nations. Israel is a secular nation. Actually, the nations that are her enemies are pretty much not secular. They are Muslim to a large extent. But Israel is not a godly nation. They don't have any official ties to religion or God. So how could that be something Christians are bound to support necessarily?

Again, I'm not against Israel. Israel is an ally of the United States and I think that allies should defend each other and things like that. But in terms of standing above it all and looking at it as God does, I'm not sure that any of us can say which side God is on. In the days of Habakkuk, Babylon was threatening Israel to destroy them or threatening Jerusalem and Judea. The prophet Habakkuk heard from God that he was going to use the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem and Judah and take them into captivity.

Habakkuk didn't like that because he said, wait, the Babylonians are worse than we are. I mean, I understand Israel has sinned against God, but the Babylonians are even worse. They are pagans. So how can you use them? How can you favor them in this particular conflict? God's answer was all nations are about on the same ground in terms of God's dealing with them. If Israel is sinning and needs judgment, then God will judge them through another nation.

And if that nation that he uses also is sinning, he'll judge them. And that's what he did. He judged Judah by Babylon, then later he judged Babylon and brought them under the Medo-Persian Empire. So God doesn't have some kind of ethnic commitments to one group of people. God has always said the same thing: those who honor me I will honor, those who despise me will be lightly esteemed.

If someone tries to get you entangled in some kind of political discussion as a Christian, I'm going to just say lay out for me all the relevant things that would go into a decision that I would make deciding who's in this conflict. How many bad things has each side done? How many good things has each side done? And let me just look at it. Now, someone's going to say you couldn't ever itemize all that because every side's done lots of good things and bad things.

Well, that's a very good reason then for me not to make any definitive judgments, isn't it? Because if I don't know which nation is worse, then I can't really make some kind of judgment. I can just pray God's will to be done and I can stand with people who are innocent if I see them as such and I can denounce aggressive things that are done unjustly. But doing so doesn't put me in the camp of any particular nation's conflicts for the rest of my life.

Peter: It reminds me of when the man met Joshua in Joshua chapter 5 and Joshua was asking, are you on our side or the side of our enemies? And the angel said, "No."

Steve Gregg: He said no. Are you on our side or on our enemies' side? And he didn't say I'm on your side or your enemies' side. He said no, I'm the commander of the Lord's host. In other words, I'm on God's side. So that doesn't put me automatically on Israel's side or on their enemies' side, just like it says there in Joshua. All right, brother. Good thinking.

Peter: Thanks Steve. It's been helpful. Thank you. God bless you.

Steve Gregg: Good talking to you, Peter. Bye now. Mike in Hawaii, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Mike: Hi Steve. I have a question that is related to the last caller but also relates to a call that you got on Friday where he said something similar and it actually really struck me hearing his question because I feel exactly the same.

Steve Gregg: Well, go ahead and give me your question. I don't need all the lead up, just tell me what your question is and we'll talk about it.

Mike: Well, I'm going to make this my question. This caller was really upset about the church's lack of involvement or caring or being salt and light in regards to certain things that are happening, mainly Gaza and the textbook genocide going on with that. Your response to him was sort of similar to the last caller in saying that we just can't know. There's two sides to every story, we just can't know. And I don't agree with that at all. That is an absolute genocide.

Steve Gregg: How can I know? When people send me propaganda that's pro-Israel and other people send me propaganda that's against Israel and I don't have any way of vetting those things, how is it I'm supposed to know then?

Mike: You try. You put the time in. There are investigative journalists that are doing a really good job and there's two sides. If you look at two sides, there's no way that you can conclude that that was not a genocide that just took place. There's absolutely no way.

Steve Gregg: Well, let me ask you this. Are there any living Palestinians left?

Mike: Yes.

Steve Gregg: Okay. So if Israel wanted to have a true genocide, eliminate all Palestinians like Hitler wanted to do with the Jews, for example, that was a genocide. If Israel wanted to wipe out all Palestinians, wouldn't they be able to do that? Couldn't they just drop an atomic bomb or something? It seems to me like they're trying to be surgical. It's true they are wiping out, unfortunately, some innocent people and they would say that's because their enemies are hiding behind living targets and I don't know if that's true or not.

But the point is you can certainly hear a case made for either side. Now, you're obviously listening to one side more than another and I say how can I know who's telling the truth? You say you can put in the time. Well, I've got limits on my time. Do I have to put in the time to decide every war that's going on in the world right now? There's a lot of wars going on. As a preacher of the Word of God, that's not really the first front burner thing that I have to be up on every current event, every war anywhere in the world and know who's done more bad things and who's done more good things. I mean, what is the argument for me putting in that time instead of using my time for something that's actually making a difference?

Mike: Well, number one, I think there's a reason why the First Amendment is the First Amendment and why they're trying to suppress speech and why they do lean either media organizations one way or the other.

Steve Gregg: Yeah, but that doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask about that. I asked you what is the argument for me putting in the time you want me to put in? What is the argument for that? How does that become a priority for me?

Mike: Because you have a knowledge base and people need to be enlightened to what the truth is in the same way that spiritual leaders did 150 years ago.

Steve Gregg: Right, but we need to know the truth. Do we have to know the truth about everything that's going on in the world right now? What is it that makes this particular conflict the thing that I have to figure out the truth about and it's urgent for me to? Is it more important than what's going on in the Ukraine? Why don't I have to figure out the truth there too? What is it that makes this the issue that you want me to put my time into?

Mike: Well, number one, because most of the church right now turns their ears from hearing anything because they do have a false belief with Israel.

Steve Gregg: Well, I'm addressing that false belief. Wait, I'm addressing that false belief every day. If the problem is that the church has a false belief about Israel and therefore they're supporting, let's say, a genocide, well, I'm doing probably more than you're doing every day. I'm attacking that false belief. I'm basically saying that belief is not true. The Bible doesn't support it.

But if someone says, but Steve, I want to tell you what's going on on the ground in Gaza. Well, I don't have anything to do with that. I don't have any impact on what's going on on the ground in Gaza. If you want to tell me there's a lot of horrible things going on, I'll believe you. I'll believe that. I can tell you some things going on in Africa that are awful too that are going on. And if I knew more, I could know more what's going on in Nigeria with Boko Haram.

Horrible things are going on. What's going on in the Ukraine? What's going on with the Uighurs in China? What's going on between China and many other countries that are threatened? Certainly there's a lot of injustice going on. What I'm saying is you're the one obsessed with Israel, not me. Because you want me to drop everything and find out everything I can about this one particular conflict in the world.

And I'm saying, well, I think there may be other conflicts that are just as important and I can't really become an expert on any of them. There's a limited number of things you can spend your time on. My time is spent trying to understand what the Bible teaches and to help others figure it out. If you want to find out what the Bible teaches and then research what's going on in any particular global conflict around the world and become an activist or an advocate for somebody, feel free. But I don't think that anybody has any grounds for telling me that that's something I need to make a front burner thing. You make it a front burner thing if you want it to be, but it's not biblically something that the Bible says I should make a front burner thing.

Mike: So you don't think that when we're called to be salt and light and be the light of the earth and bring truth that only refers to the Bible?

Steve Gregg: Well, no. I mean, there's other truths too, but we don't know all of them. I'm telling you I don't have firsthand knowledge of anything in the Middle East. I see YouTube and I get emails and I get people sending me articles on both sides. And it's sort of like a lot of other things we should want to know the truth about. We don't ever want to say things that are not true, but we don't have to know everything that is true because not everything that is true is going to be our responsibility.

And frankly, whatever's going on in the Middle East, that may be some people's responsibility. It doesn't happen to be on my desk. I mean, I don't mean I'm not concerned. Whenever I hear about anything, if I hear about one person who's been kidnapped, a child from their home, I can't do anything about it, but it concerns me. I don't like it. I hate it. Whenever I hear about any crime, it bothers me. Whenever I hear about any war, it bothers me.

But to say it bothers me means I have an emotional interest in people's well-being, but it doesn't mean I have a personal responsibility to go out and do something about it or investigate it. How many crimes and wars are there going on at any given moment that we don't even know are happening and which ones are we obligated to become experts about? That's what I'm wondering and why are you saying that this is the one?

Mike: Well, because I've heard you discuss a multitude of times when people call in and ask about Israel, you do say this: "I have nothing against Israel." I would have something against Israel because it is a textbook genocide. They have leveled... you can see actual videos of the place pulverized to the ground and people getting shot at that are trying to get food. That is a fact.

Steve Gregg: Okay, and are you not aware that there are synagogues in Israel being pulverized by suicide bombers? I mean, yeah, that's a nasty thing about war. People kill each other, people destroy property. That's going on in many parts of the world right now. You're not really addressing my question. You're saying I should be concerned because bad things are happening. I am concerned that bad things are happening.

What I'm saying is how is it that an obligation falls to me to be an expert on this particular series of bad things as opposed to those going on in other parts of the world? And you're saying, well, you need to because you need to tell the truth. I will. The truth is I don't know. The truth is that if I lived over there, if I saw things going on, if I was interviewing people there, I would perhaps know more than I do now. Maybe not because I'd still be hearing not all the facts.

But I'm against evil, okay? If Israel is doing evil, I'm against what they're doing. If their enemies are doing evil, I'm against what they're doing. I'm not taking sides in an international conflict. I'm not part of either of the nations involved. I'm just against evil. And if you want me to be against one kind of evil or one nation's evil more than any other nation's evil, I'm not really sure what case can be made for that. But I appreciate your call. Thanks for joining us. Joseph in Knoxville, Tennessee, welcome to The Narrow Path.

Joseph: Hey, thank you Steve. I appreciate the answer. I grew up with many friends in Israel and most of my friends are in the army right now and I usually just redirect people off that subject just because it feeds a desire that shouldn't be fed. Anyways, my question is Matthew 22 about the resurrection in the Old Testament, specifically Jesus answering them about how they're mistaken, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. And the reference he gives them in verse 32, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." As a Christian post-Christ who has meditated on afterlife and resurrection probably a lot more than the Old Testament Jew, I see this verse that he referenced as very ambiguous to prove such a prominent point. And so I was going to ask if you see that verse also as ambiguous or even do you even see the topic of resurrection in the Torah especially? Because I know that they rejected the prophets and writings.

Steve Gregg: Well, what it sounds like you're saying is when Jesus said that they should have known better than to take the view they're holding because of this verse that he quotes, which is when he spoke to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus and God said, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." I don't think he's saying that that statement that God made to Moses was a statement directly about the resurrection. But I think he's saying if you had thought about what the scriptures said reasonably enough, you would have to conclude this because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died.

And God was still their God. And yet Jesus says, but God's not the God of dead people, but of living people. In other words, he's saying Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God is their God even though they're dead, but he's only the God of living people. So either they are not dead in every sense or else they are at least going to live again because he's still connected to them even though they've died. Now, it's not clear which way he means it, although in Luke's version he does say "for all live to Him," which is explaining apparently that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still living to God.

That either means that their soul has survived their death and they're still living in another realm, or that God sees them as their life is not really over because it's going to be continued again after the resurrection. Not really clear how Jesus sees it, but what he does see is that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not done yet. God was still their God even after they were dead. That's the point he's making. Now, the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection, but they also didn't believe in spirits.

So one way or another, either Jesus was saying their spirits live on, which is a correction to the Sadducees who didn't believe in spirits, or he's saying their life is not really fully over because it's going to be re-continued in the resurrection, which also the Sadducees didn't believe in. One way or another, the point works against the Sadducees. They don't believe in resurrection, they don't believe in spirits, and Jesus is saying, well, then how come these guys who died hundreds of years before Moses' time and God meets Moses and says, hey, I'm their God. Not I was, I am.

It's not "I was the God of Abraham when he was alive," He says, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Now, how can people who are dead have a God? That's what Jesus is saying you should have figured out. Now, he's not saying that God was conveying the notion of the resurrection when he spoke to Moses thus. He's saying if you think about scriptures clearly enough, you'll realize that the implications of this would correct your doctrine. He says "you err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God." So I understand what you mean. It's not a very clear reference to the resurrection in the Torah. But it's good enough. I need to take a break. Our website's thenarrowpath.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds. Don't go away. Thanks for joining us. Got another half hour.

Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour taking your calls. We have one line open if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or a different viewpoint from the host you want to balance comment. Here's the number to call: 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Joe from Mena, Arkansas. Hi Joe, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Joe: Hi, thanks Steve. Thanks for taking my call. I found you about a year ago on YouTube and I'm so glad I did, I've learned a lot. My question is Matthew chapter 12. This has been bothering me for years and I don't know if it's even answerable. But Jesus tells the Pharisees as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights. That sounds intentional. In the center of the earth, everybody seems to think that he died on Friday. You can't get three nights there. I kind of think that maybe it was a Wednesday or Thursday because there were two Passovers that week. What's your perspective on that?

Steve Gregg: Well, there are definitely people who argue for a Wednesday crucifixion, there are some who argue for a Thursday crucifixion. The majority of Christians believe it was a Friday crucifixion. I think the ones who go for a different day than Friday are looking to make it a literal three days and three nights because you're right. I mean, between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning when he rose, that may be parts of three days, but it's only two nights, there's no three nights in there.

And so they say to get a third night we have to have him crucified maybe on Thursday so you've got Thursday night, Friday night, and Saturday night and then he's raised on Sunday. Or some have suggested Wednesday so he's dead Wednesday night, Thursday night, and Friday night and perhaps he rises Saturday night and they find the tomb empty early Sunday morning. There are different ways people have gone on this. Now, the problem here is the assumption that Jesus was being absolutely literal when he said he'd be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

And the reason that's a problematic thing is because Jesus on at least three different occasions and the apostles on at least one or more occasions afterward said that Jesus would rise or did rise on the third day. So if he's literally dead three days and three nights and he rises after that, it's going to be the fourth day because after three days and three nights you've got another day, a fourth day. And so if he's going to rise on the third day, it can't be after being literally three days and three nights in the tomb.

Repeatedly Jesus told his disciples, "I'm going to rise on the third day." And years afterward Paul in First Corinthians 15 says, "And he did rise on the third day." Well, then what do they do with the three days and three nights? Well, I believe first of all we have to know that when he used the term three days and three nights in Matthew 12:40, it's the only time in the Bible that you have that expression for Christ's time in the tomb.

And he is quoting from the Book of Jonah directly. The language is from Jonah 1:17. In Jonah 1:17 it says, "Now the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." So that's where Jesus gets the phrase. Now, three days and three nights in the Hebraic idioms that were often used, could be to the Jewish mind part of three days. And we might say, but that's not literal. You're right, it's not.

But there's no nation, no society, no culture in the world that ever restricted itself to only literal speech. There are figures of speech. And in Israel, "three days and three nights" was seen as a figure of speech that meant parts of three days. And Jesus might not have used that figure of speech at all except that he's drawing the connection with Jonah. It says in Jonah that it was three days and three nights and he says, just like Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so I'm going to be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So he's not in my opinion being literal about the three days and three nights. I think he's simply using an idiom that any Jew would have recognized means at least parts of three days. At least that's how I understand it.

Joe: So you believe that it was Friday that he was crucified then too?

Steve Gregg: Well, yeah. If he was crucified on Friday and he rose on Sunday, that would be the third day.

Joe: Can I ask one little question that's related to that? In John's gospel, it says that he was crucified on the Preparation Day for the Passover because the Jews didn't want to enter Pilate's gate, but on the synoptic gospels, it says that it was on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. How does that reconcile?

Steve Gregg: Well, again, Passover can refer to the Paschal day which was followed by seven days of unleavened bread, or the whole week, the whole festival can be the Passover. So if it said it was the preparation for the Passover, and if preparation is being used of the typical way of meaning the Friday, it would mean it was Friday of the Passover week. It may also be that the Passover festival started on Saturday that year, and in which case it was both Friday of the Passover week and also the day before the Passover meal.

But it is interesting the synoptic gospels do indicate that Jesus kept the Passover with his disciples in the upper room and yet he was crucified the next day. What John's gospel says is that the Jews didn't want to enter Pilate's house because they didn't want to become unclean because they wanted to keep the Passover. And again, if we keep thinking of the Passover as the Paschal meal, well, Jesus and his disciples had it the night before, so why would the Jews not have had it the same day?

But if it means they wanted to keep the whole feast and they didn't want to interrupt their participation in the feast by getting unclean by going into the house of Pilate, that would make sense of the statement too.

Joe: All right, thank you very much Steve. I appreciate it.

Steve Gregg: Okay Joe, good talking to you. Matthew in New Jersey is next. Welcome to The Narrow Path, Matthew.

Matthew: Hey Steve, thanks for taking the call. God bless you. Your "What Do We Make of Israel" topical lecture has helped me a great deal for people that want to know your opinion or what your thoughts are. I'm going to complete the trifecta of Matthew questions today. Matthew 28:11, I read from the LSB, "Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened." And then I think we kind of know the rest. I don't believe John 20, Mark 16, or Luke 24 mention this part of it. I'm guessing it's just Matthew's being a former tax collector on bribery and things of that nature. But do we know exactly what these guards saw that could cause them to not just fall... I'm just shocked that money could matter based on what these guards, not knowing exactly what they saw or what they reported, but it's mind-blowing.

Steve Gregg: Well, you're right that Matthew alone talks about these guards. And what we hear is that there was a great earthquake and the guards kind of trembled and were like dead men and the angel came and moved the stone. And then we find the disciples eventually come but the guards have left by the time the disciples arrive apparently, unless they're still laying there like dead men. The Bible doesn't actually tell us that the disciples had to step over the unconscious bodies of guards to get into the tomb, but probably the guards had come to and left before the apostles arrived.

Now, what Matthew tells us here in verse 11 and following is that at a certain point after the guards had left the tomb, they came to the chief priests and were paid off to spread a rumor that the disciples had stolen the body while the guards slept. Now, you're saying if the guards knew that Jesus rose from the dead, how could they accept money to tell a lie? Why wouldn't they be converted?

There were people who saw Lazarus rise too, which the Bible says in John 12 that there were people who saw Lazarus rise and because of that believed. But there were also those who saw him rise and they didn't believe and they went and reported to the Pharisees so that a plot was formed to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus. So in other words, seeing a miracle doesn't always have the same impact on people. People will believe or not believe a miracle as they are inclined to or not to.

There was a time in John chapter 12 when a voice spoke audibly from heaven to Jesus. Jesus said, "Father, glorify your name," and the voice spoke from heaven and said, "I have glorified it and I will glorify it again." And it says some standing there said it thundered and others said an angel spoke to him. Now, notice that all these people who heard this voice speak from heaven, some of them gave it a natural interpretation. It thundered. Others knew it was supernatural and they thought it must be an angel's voice.

That's kind of the way things are. When a miracle happens, there's going to be some people who are open to the miraculous and perhaps persuaded by it. And there's people who simply aren't open to it or they would say, well, this probably has a different explanation. We don't know if the guards saw Jesus come out of the tomb. We only read that an earthquake happened, an angel came to move the stone, and the guards passed out.

By the time they came to, Jesus probably had walked out of the tomb. They didn't see him. And so they may have even deduced that the apostles stole the body. It's hard to know what they knew because it doesn't suggest that the guards actually saw Jesus come out alive. So there might be any number of explanations for why they took money. Let's put it this way: even if they believed Jesus had come out of the tomb alive, that wouldn't get them off the hook.

Roman guards would be put to death for losing what they were guarding. And it's not likely they could convince the Roman authorities that Jesus had risen from the dead and walked out of the tomb. So they had to have some other kind of fallback. And the Pharisees said, well, we'll pay you and you tell people you fell asleep and the disciples took the body. And of course that's not an okay story, but they said if this comes to the governor's ears, we'll advocate for you.

Now, apparently what that meant is if Pilate heard this story that the guards had fallen asleep and the body was moved, typically that would go badly for the guards, really badly. In Acts chapter 12, the guards who were guarding Peter in jail, when an angel sprung him out of jail, they were put to death, the Bible says. And these guards probably were facing the same thing. You lose the thing you guard, you're not allowed to lose it, especially if you're sleeping.

So the chief priest said, well, if this comes to the governor's ears, we'll advocate for you. And no doubt what that meant would be if Pilate said, why are my guards sleeping? I'm going to put them to death. The chief priest would say, well, listen, the only other thing we could say is that Jesus rose from the dead and we'll have a lot more trouble with that story. You're going to have a problem with the disciples of Jesus coming around and saying he's God and stuff like that.

So neither the Romans nor the Jews really wanted the gospel to perpetuate. And so I think in this one case the chief priests and the Romans had a common interest and that was to suppress the truth in which case they probably could the Romans might overlook the guards' error in this case. Anyway, we don't know. But it's not as if it's inexplicable how if they were there when Jesus rose, how could they not become believers? I don't know, maybe some of them did become believers for all we know. We're not told how many guards there were or how they all reacted. But we're also not told that they saw Jesus leave the tomb. They saw that the tomb was open, the body was gone, so who knows?

Matthew: All right, understood. As always, appreciate it, Steve. God bless you.

Steve Gregg: All right, Matthew. Good talking to you. Let's talk to Mark in Yakima, Washington. Mark, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Mark: Hello, I have listened to your books on the four views of hell and I have listened to your debates between eternal security and I think you have the better arguments. My question is what I wonder is how does God in heaven and Jesus, who is love, how can they be happy in heaven and full of peace and joy if the people they love are in hell? I mean, I can't imagine... I have brothers and sisters who are not followers of Christ, they used to be and then they haven't been for years. So I can't imagine myself being happy in heaven if they are in hell.

Steve Gregg: I hear you and that's one of the main arguments people bring up, one of the main objections people have to the whole idea that hell is a place of eternal conscious torment. It's one thing to think of Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson being tormented forever and ever. It's another thing to think of your siblings or your children or your parents or your grandparents being tormented forever and ever and they weren't really very bad people. Does God love them less than you do? Because you love them so much it would be torment to you to know they're being tormented. How could you enjoy heaven knowing that they are being tormented?

Or for that matter, if you had a child in prison, and let's say not an American prison, let's say they're in a third-world jail and they're beaten up and they're raped and they're abused and tortured and things like that, you would not sleep well knowing that somebody you loved was in that position. So how could God be happy about it? Why would God even ordain it?

Maybe God can't make everyone love him, but he certainly has a choice of what he's going to do to the ones who don't. And if eternal conscious torment is what he chooses, that tells us an awful lot. It means that he doesn't love people like we do. And it makes it a very difficult doctrine and thankfully it's not taught clearly in scripture. That's why my book on the three views of hell talks about other scriptural options that the Bible could teach and certainly seems to have more evidence for than the traditional view.

But there are answers that some have given. Those who hold the traditional view have two different answers they've given. One of them is well, we can be happy in heaven because God will wipe our memories and we won't remember them. Yes, our loved ones, they'll be tormented forever and ever in hell, but we'll just be oblivious to it. God's going to wipe that away from our minds.

Which to my mind is a strange thing because it means that the only way we could be happy in heaven is if we don't really know what God's up to. If God's got a secret that he doesn't dare let us know because we would not be able to agree with it, we would not be able to appreciate it. And therefore it means that even when we're perfected, we will not be fully aligned with God and he's going to have to keep a dark secret from us so that we won't be miserable and we can live in a bliss that's ignorant.

But even if we're blissfully ignorant, that doesn't mean our loved ones aren't there being tortured. It's just a reality that God will have to just make sure we never find out about. That means we're not going to be in the light, God's going to keep us in the dark. And it means that God will still be doing things that we could never approve of and he knows we would never approve of even in heaven and therefore he has to keep us from knowing. That's kind of a weird and dark answer.

The other answer that they sometimes give is well, we don't see things God's way now. When we are in heaven we will see things clearly like he does and we will not be grieved that these people are being tormented even if it was my dear old grandma if she's tormented in hell, I will see it the way God does which means I won't mind. But who says that God doesn't mind? God is the one who is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

He's the one who says, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." If I happen to be more like him when I'm with him than I am now, that doesn't mean I'm going to be less loving. I'll be more loving. It doesn't mean I'll be less compassionate toward the suffering of others. I'll be more compassionate toward it. That God is. God said about when Israel suffered, "In all their affliction he was afflicted." And when people were mistreated, his children, his people, he says, "When they were mistreated, I was mistreated. If you didn't do it to them, you didn't do it to me." God is sympathetic more than I am.

I'm sympathetic with some people, but I don't know everyone so I don't have universal sympathy. God knows everyone and he's love. So to suggest that well, when we're more like him, we'll be okay with the whole idea that some people are just tortured forever and ever and ever. No, I don't think even God's okay with that. So we have to ask does the Bible really teach that? And that's where many evangelical writers, myself included, have written on the subject. It is an objection. It is a true and legitimate objection to the traditional view. There may be ways to overcome it, but the two ways that I've heard people try are very unacceptable to me at least.

Mark: So what's your best guess about how God does it? How does he love the angels that left him and he had to kick them out and he prepared hell for them? How does he deal with the angels that he loved that turned against him?

Steve Gregg: Well, you've got to realize that that's the question, isn't it? I mean, you have my book. I say in my book I don't know which view is correct. Each view of hell, whether it's eternal conscious torment, whether it's annihilation of the wicked, whether it's continual rehab of the wicked in hell and ultimately allowing them to repent and be saved eventually too, all three of those views have been held by Christian church fathers from the earliest ages of the church because all of them have a case that can be made for them in scripture.

They obviously can't all be true, but it's clear that the Bible doesn't choose between those unambiguously for us. So as far as what's God going to do about it, well, he's going to do whatever's consistent with his character. Those who believe that he's going to annihilate them believe that that's a loving thing to do with somebody you can't if you can't reform them. It's sort of like when the dog gets rabies. You've got to kill them. You don't want to kill them, you love them, but they can't be cured so you put them out of their misery and out of yours.

And that would be according to annihilation, that's basically how God resolves it. He wants everyone to be saved and not to perish. But some people will choose the path of perishing. And he's not happy about it, but he doesn't torture them forever either. The other view of course is that God keeps working on them. God wants them saved and so there's not a reason in the world why he should cut off all opportunity for repentance at the point they die. Why would God's attitude toward them change then?

If somebody's on their deathbed and they're suffering, they're dying of cancer and so forth, and they're not a believer, and God wants more than anything for them to convert and be saved, well, then why the moment they pass from this life into the next would God not still want them to convert and be saved? If someone says well they can't then, who says? If God wants them to, wouldn't God be able to give them that opportunity? Who's telling God what he can and cannot do?

So these views are all out there and Christians have held all of them. My book is a good exploration of it. You're listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let's talk again tomorrow.