The Narrow Path

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 to take your phone calls. If you have questions you'd like to call in about the Bible or the Christian faith for us to talk about, we'll talk about those. If you disagree with the host, we'll talk about that too. You give me a call and let me know, and we'll have that conversation.

We have lines open right now, and if you want to call now, this is a good time. The last few days, I think our lines have been full at the beginning of the program, and I've had to tell you, well, call a little later. Well, you can call right now, and there are some lines open for you at 844-484-5737. That number again is 844-484-5737.

And let's see, we got an announcement about tomorrow night. Tomorrow night is the first Wednesday of the month. And on the first Wednesday of each month, we have a Zoom meeting in the evening, which you're welcome to join us for. You can just be there as a viewer or a participant. It's a Q&A time. And if you want to join us for the Zoom meeting tomorrow night, it's at 7:00 Pacific Time.

And so you might have to make the adjustment for your time zone, but at 7:00 Pacific Time, we have a Zoom meeting each first Wednesday of the month. That includes tomorrow. If you wonder how to get into it, it's really quite simple. Go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. Go to the tab that says announcements and scroll down to tomorrow's date, which is May 6th, and then there's a login code there that you can use to get into the Zoom meeting tomorrow night, 7 p.m. All right, and I don't think I have anything else to announce at the moment.

So we'll talk to Keith in Sacramento, California, our first caller today. Hi, Keith. Welcome.

Keith: Hi. Yes, I wanted to inquire, my question is what was life like before Jesus came?

Steve Gregg: Where?

Keith: All over, basically.

Steve Gregg: Well, life wasn't the same everywhere. You had the Roman Empire, you had, of course, Asia, you had Australia, you had Africa. I mean, there's lots of places life would be different. Are you wondering what was it like for the Jews?

Keith: Yes.

Steve Gregg: Okay. Well, they lived technically under the Law of Moses. And so as you study, you know, Exodus through Deuteronomy, especially Exodus and Leviticus, you get some idea of what life looked like. It was a very elaborate description of their cultural and religious practices.

They, for much of their history, and especially at the time Jesus came, but also for some hundreds of years, about 500 years or more before Jesus came, they were, had been conquered by non-Jewish people. They were taken into captivity by the Babylonians and they lived under their rule for a while. And then the Babylonians were conquered by the Persians. And so Israel, although they were allowed to go back to their land at that time, they were still part of the Persian Empire. So they lived under the Persian rule. Then there was the Greek rule that conquered the Persians and then the Romans. And the Romans were in power when Jesus came.

So I don't think life was the same at all places at all times. I assume that being under the Babylonians was considerably different than being under the Romans, for example. To say what was life like, I mean, if you asked me what is life like now? Now, I'm much more familiar with the way life is now, but I'm not sure I would be able to boil it down. What aspects of life are you curious about?

Keith: Well, you did basically answer the question already when you said all that. Thank you.

Steve Gregg: All right, well thank you, Keith. Good talking to you. Orion in Sacramento, same town. Welcome to the Narrow Path.

Orion: Happy to be on there. First-time caller here and I like the fact that you guys don't screen the callers like other programs out there. Anyway, my question is in regards to the Ethiopian Bible. I know that the Bible seems incomplete. There are questions that the Bible itself cannot answer, like the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew, and also the Nephilim and the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch, actually, I think, is very relevant because the Book of Jude mentions the Book of Enoch. So I don't know why the Book of Enoch is not included in the Bible. But anyway, the Ethiopian Bible consists of 88 books, so there's 24 more books there in addition, including the Book of Enoch. So what do you think about that, Steve?

Steve Gregg: Well, as far as, you know, the Book of Enoch, you said should be in the Bible because because Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch. In the book of Titus, Paul quotes from Epimenides of Crete, the Greek philosopher. And in Acts chapter 17, he quotes from a couple of different Greek philosophers, but that doesn't mean that they belong in the Bible. A lot of times a preacher will quote from sources that are not in the Bible and don't belong in the Bible. Just because someone quotes from something doesn't tell us that they considered it to belong to the canon of Scripture.

The Book of Enoch, I feel I have difficulty with the Book of Enoch being included for the simple reason that scholars seem to agree that the Book of Enoch was written in the second century BC. And since it claims to be written by Enoch, and he was not around on the earth in the second century BC, but had been taken up before the flood some 2,500 years before Christ, it seems clear that Enoch didn't write the Book of Enoch. And a book that claims to be written by a person, but it isn't, is not an infallible book. In fact, it's not even telling the truth, even about the author. If the author doesn't tell the truth about who he is, I'm not sure why I would trust anything else that he says as being inspired.

Now, the Book of Enoch is included in the Ethiopian Bible, not in the Roman Catholic or the Protestant Bibles. And I don't think it should be in the Bible, except that it's an interesting book. You mentioned that the Bible seems incomplete. If you mean the Protestant Bible, and you said because that 400 years is left undiscussed, the 400 years between Malachi and John the Baptist, the what we call the intertestamental period.

Well, it's not entirely undiscussed because Daniel's books, and even Zechariah, prophesy things that took place and were fulfilled during that 400 years. It's true that we don't have the historical record in the Bible of those fulfillments, though we have that historical record in other books. So, you know, it's not absolutely necessary that we have every detail of history included in the Bible. The Bible is not there in my opinion, at least the Bible that I'm looking at and that I value as the word of God, is not simply there to tell me everything that happened in history, but rather to be a collection of those writings that were written by inspired writers.

Now, there's plenty of good books that were not written by inspired writers. Some of them were written during that 400-year period, including the Book of Enoch and the books of Maccabees, which tell us much of that history of the 400-year period. Not all of it, but there are history books that cover most parts of history that are not written by inspired authors. By inspired authors, I mean prophets. Prophets are those who receive revelation and inspiration from God to write the word of God. Good history doesn't have to be written by inspired men. Sometimes inspired men do write history, but we could know historical things without an inspired record of it because there's other reliable records of it.

But the Bible, you know, if we think the Bible needs to include every book that's relevant, let's say to the Jewish experience over the period of their entire history, then we would have to fill in those 400 years with some other books. But I don't know that we need to, especially if the only books available from that period were not written by inspired writers. We have access to those books, so we can know the information that's in them. But to stick them into the Bible as if they are the word of God when they're not written by inspired writers would be something that I would vote against, apparently most of the churches did in the West and the East.

So I mean, that's how I feel about those things. So the Book of Enoch, in my opinion, is not an inspired book. And the fact that Jude quotes from it, you know, is not really very much different than Peter or Paul or anyone else quoting from any other works that aren't inspired. An inspired writer can refer to things that are, you know, written in other works as well without saying that those other works were inspired. So I don't have a Bible with 88 books in it, but I, you know, I'm not, I've never picked on the Ethiopian Bible for having them. I just that would not be my choice to have those in my Bible. Now, all the books that they do have that my Bible doesn't, I wouldn't mind having those books on my shelf. I'm not against reading them. But, you know, when I have a Bible in my hand, I'd like to think I have the books in it that were inspired by God and that sets it apart from all other books, including ancient books about Jews, including ancient historical records of Jews. If they're not written by inspired writers, then I don't count them to be inspired books. All right? Thank you for your call. Let's see, Mark in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Welcome.

Mark: Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. I have a question on Romans 9. I've listened to everything you have on Romans, and I really appreciate it, and it helps me understand it in a way that my gut feels and all that. But, but obviously I have many Calvinist friends, and what I will say, one of the points that I haven't heard you specifically address that I'd like you to do to address is on the, the argument that was posed to me is, so if we go Romans 9:19, "Why does he still find fault, for who can resist his will?"

Okay, so the argument I had opposed against me was that the will that is referred to, the word that's used for will is different than the word that's used in other places for will. For example, right above that, when he says he hardens whomsoever he wills or just in other examples. And so, so the first question is, have you ever heard that argument? How do you respond? And then the second question I have is more generic, which is the response to that question. My understanding is that your position is that Paul's basically saying, well, you can resist his will, this is a, you have a bad premise. Your premise is bad and so I'm going to address that. But I think the Calvinist has a better argument, or it seems on its face, that when he says, but who are you, oh man, to answer back to God, you know, what is molded say to its mold, and so on and so forth. I think that logically follows from the Calvinist perspective. Like it seems like he is treating it like a serious question and he is saying, yeah, you know, shut up. So there's two questions. One is have you ever heard that specific objection and how do you respond to it? And the second one is the generic argument, it does seem to be more in favor of the Calvinist position.

Steve Gregg: Well, it depends on what you're thinking as you read up to it and beyond it. If you think that Paul is interested in presenting the Calvinist paradigm in this passage, then of course it's going to seem like he's presenting a Calvinist paradigm because some of the things he says can be read through that lens. What I understand is Paul is has not broken away in this passage from the subject he was talking about just before it or afterwards. In other words, Chapter 9, 10, and 11, he's discussing what is the nature of Israel and what is the explanation for the fact that though the Messiah has come, Israel has not been saved as the Old Testament prophets said Israel would be saved through the Messiah.

And so the question on the table is, the Jew would be asking Paul, you say that Jesus is the Messiah, but our Bible says when the Messiah comes, Israel will be saved. But look, if being saved means following Jesus, Israel has not been saved because Israel doesn't follow Jesus. And so Paul is saying, well, the scriptures were not wrong. He says that in verse 6 of the same chapter, "It's not that the word of God has taken no effect" or has failed to come true, because not all are Israel who are Israel.

So he's what he's arguing here is there's a distinction between what we might call ethnic Israel as a whole race and the Israel that the promises of God are applicable to. And he and this is how he talks through this area. Verse 7 and 8, he's pointing out that Abraham had more than one son, but only one was the one the promises applied to. And that one, Isaac, had two sons, but only one of those was the one that promises applied to. And by extension, anyone might be a physical descendant of Abraham or of Isaac and the promises not apply to him.

And that's what he's arguing. He's saying you're wondering why God promised Israel would be saved when Messiah comes and now Messiah has come and Israel hasn't been saved. Well, who who is the Israel that would be saved? Not all who are of Israel, meaning not all who are descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are this Israel that was promised.

And he goes on to say in verse 27 that Isaiah speaks of only a remnant of Israel being saved. Isaiah said though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved. So he's saying only the faithful remnant of Israel are Israel. And he continues talking this way all the way through Chapter 11.

Now, the Calvinist thinks that at some point, I don't know where, maybe at verse 10, Paul decided to talk about an entirely different subject. He's stopped talking about who Israel is. He stops talking about what the promises how the promises of Israel's salvation have been fulfilled to the true Israel. And now he's just decided to go off and and go on to a Calvinist screed where he's saying, listen, you know, God doesn't give people choices about these things.

Well, Paul doesn't say that God doesn't give people choices about these things, though some people, particularly Manichaeans, who believe that God does ordain all things, sort of the Manichaeans are sort of the ones who first had the doctrines that later came to Augustine. Augustine was a Manichaean, and then Augustine's doctrines were passed down through Calvin and so forth as Calvinism. But you know, Paul is not changing the subject as Calvinists think.

Calvinists like to take this block and say, look, Paul is affirming our doctrine of unconditional election. Well, I don't think he is. I think he's talking about the subject he was talking about. I don't think he's changed his subject. I don't think he's off on a rabbit trail somewhere else. He's still arguing the same thing.

He's saying that just as Abraham and Isaac's families were more numerous in number than the ones to whom the promises applied, because only one of Abraham's seed of his eight sons, only one of them the promise applied to him. Of Isaac's two sons, only one of them the promise applied to him. And by extension, this continues. There are other people who are descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the promise doesn't apply to them.

Now what he has said just before the passage the verse you're talking about, he says actually it's just after it, isn't it? He says in verse 20, "Indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me thus?' Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump, to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

Now, the clay, of course, is Israel. This is his subject in Romans 9 through 11. He's talking about Israel, okay? In Jeremiah chapter 18, the clay was Israel. God was the potter. So God can take one lump of clay, which is Israel, the nation, and divide it into two parts. And that's what he's been saying all along. He's saying of the children of Abraham, there's two categories. There's Isaac, who's the one that the promises apply to, and then there's all the others, the promises don't apply to.

What he's saying is that God can take the ethnic Israel as one lump of clay and divide it into two categories, those that the promises apply to and those that the promises do not apply to. And of course he goes on from there to argue that the promise is made clear in Isaiah, of course we're in Romans 9:27, where he says only the remnant of Israel, not all Israel, but only the remnant will be saved.

So he's arguing all the way through the same point. Now, when he talks about how God, you know, chooses to have mercy on whom he'll have mercy, he's making it very clear that God doesn't have to show mercy on the whole nation of Israel. In fact, when God said to Moses, "I will have mercy upon whom I'll have mercy," this was right after God had told him, "Get out of my way, I'm going to destroy the Israelites because they made a golden calf. I'll make a greater nation out of you, Moses, and I'll wipe them out."

Now think of what that would mean. That would mean that all the Israelites if God wiped them out, the ones that God made the promises to, they wouldn't be included in the promises, but only a small remnant, the ones that would come from Moses, would. Now what Paul is pointing out is God doesn't owe it to all Israelites, even the disobedient ones, to fulfill his promise to them. He can show mercy to whoever he wants to, and he wants to show mercy on the faithful. And he doesn't have to show mercy to those who are unfaithful, even if they bear the stamp of the name Israel.

He's talking about Israel here the whole time. But then, of course, he introduces, and you know because you've heard me say this before, maybe some of the listeners have not, in verse 19 he says, "You will say to me then, why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will?" Now, we have to recognize everyone recognizes those are rhetorical questions. A rhetorical question is really a statement that's made in the form of a question. To say "how can he find fault" means he can't find fault. That's I mean the question is implying he can't find fault because who has resisted his will means nobody has.

So these two statements are rhetorical questions that are really in a sense affirmations. He cannot find fault. Paul, if you're right, then God cannot find fault because no one has resisted his will. And Paul's Paul's saying, "Wait a minute here. I didn't say no one has resisted his will." And Paul couldn't say that no one has resisted God's will.

Now, it says, for example, in Luke 7 and verse 30 that the Pharisees, the Pharisees rejected the will of God for themselves by not being baptized by John, it says. So God wanted them to be baptized by John, but they didn't. And thus they rejected God's will for themselves. Okay, so obviously people can reject or resist God's will. In fact, that's kind of the whole theme of the Old Testament, isn't it? I mean, God has a will for Israel and they keep rejecting it. He doesn't want them to worship other gods, but they do.

Jesus said of course in Matthew 23, "Jerusalem, how many times I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you wouldn't come." So I mean, it's the theme of scripture almost almost throughout that God has a plan and a desire for people, but they reject it too often, all the time. Stephen said to the Sanhedrin in Acts chapter 7, "Which of the, you always resist the will of God. Which of the prophets did you not kill?" and so forth.

So I mean, for Paul to suggest no one has resisted God's will would be for him to ignore Jesus, the prophets, you know, every frankly, the whole Bible. And so he's not saying that, but the the objector thinks he is. They think what he has said implies that nobody has rejected God's will. And if that's true, they're saying he can't find fault because whatever people do that he's finding fault for was his will. And Paul's saying I never said that. And the second statement, "Who has resisted his will?" since it's in the form of a question, Paul answers it. "Who are you?" You're answering against God. That's resisting.

Mark: Okay, that makes sense. That makes more sense. That, and I've heard you say it and it never clicked. Because I followed you every like I follow that line of thinking through Romans and it makes sense to me. This is just the one weak point where I'm like, well it does sound like he is saying like, "Hey, shut up, you know, don't talk back to God." But when you say it's the who is the who? Now, there was one thing you didn't address if I could, and that's the specific thing of the will argument. I never heard it and someone asked me that and I on whether the will that he is saying is the "secret will." What you described before, like God has a secret will and then he does what he wants.

Steve Gregg: Okay, yeah. There are different words in the Bible for will that are more or less synonymous, just like just like there are, oh my, are we already out of the first half hour? Let me come back to you because we have to take a break here, and I'll hold you over and we'll address that very point. Okay, please stay. All right. You're listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. The music means we're at the halfway point. We're not done. We have another half hour coming, so don't go away. At the halfway point, we like to let you know that the Narrow Path is listener supported. And if you'd like to help us stay on the air, you may. You don't have to. Everything at our website is free, our radio program is commercial free and free to you. But if you want to help us stay on the air, you can. You can write to the Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can go to our website. You can donate or just take stuff for free. It's thenarrowpath.com. That's thenarrowpath.com. I'll be right back. Don't go away.

Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour. So stay tuned, and our lines are full. We'll be taking calls through this entire half hour. If lines open up, I'll let you know the number and invite you to call, but it looks like we're probably going to be busy for this half hour with the questions that are already waiting to be asked.

Before the break, we were talking about the question of whether people could resist God's will. And Paul had said that God's will is done in the saving of the remnant of Israel and his passing over the unbelieving portion of Israel. And that was God's will. And God has the right to do what he wants, to accept who he wants to accept. Now, he accepts people who are believers. He has the right to make that the basis for acceptance, and he has done so. And so he can reject unbelievers and he's not unfaithful. He's got that right.

Now, that's what we're talking about. We were talking about Romans 9:19, where the question is raised, "Well, who has resisted God's will? How can he find fault for who has resisted his will?" And we were discussing whether there's two words for the will of God. There's numerous words in the Greek for a will or desire. You know, desire and will are translated interchangeably sometimes. I mean, purpose could be a translation of the word also. This particular word is only found twice in the New Testament, but similar words and ones that are derived from the same root are found numerous times.

Like the word that "Who has resisted God's will?" is *boulema* in Greek, and it's based on the word *boule*, which is used a number of times. There's possibly not very much difference in their meaning, but the only other time that particular word is found is in Acts chapter 27 and verse 43, where it says the centurion, willing to save Paul, kept them from their purpose. That's the same word *boulema*. The purpose, that is the will of the people who were to kill the prisoners when Paul was about to be shipwrecked and the soldiers wanted to kill the prisoners on the ship, but someone stopped them from their purpose, or from their will, their intention.

So the will, the intention, the desire, the purpose, these are all possible meanings of what we use the word "will" to mean and what the Bible means. Now, so there are different words for will. The question, though, related to Calvinism is, are there two kinds of will of God? Calvinists believe that God has two wills: his what we might call his decretal will and his secret will, or his prescriptive will, which is where he commands us to do something. He says, "Don't murder, don't commit adultery." He's expressing his will that people not murder and not commit adultery. And if we say, "Can people resist that will?" of course, people do commit adultery, people do steal, people do murder. So God's will that they not do so is violated.

But Calvinists say, but there's a secret will of God, another will of God. And that is what he really wants to happen. It's not always the same as what he says he wants to happen. Because they would believe, for example, and Calvinism does teach this, that God ordained by his sovereign grace that Adam and Eve would fall. And that frankly that he ordained everything that happens, including every sin that's ever committed. But let's take that one: that God ordained that Adam and Eve would fall. The fall was decreed by God's sovereign decree, that was part of his secret will.

It was a secret because he told them not to do it and gave the impression that he didn't want them to do it. He said, "Don't eat that tree." Now, if we were to determine what his will was in the situation, we might think we should determine it by what he told them. He said his will was for them not to eat it. I mean, I don't know how he could have expressed it plainer.

But Calvinism says, no, there's another way to know the will of God, and that is what happens. What actually happens was decreed by God. So there's what God tells people or implies that his will is for them, and then his real secret will is what they actually end up doing. This is how they maintain an idea of sovereignty of God that is not biblical, but is Manichaean. It's a Manichaean doctrine that everything God wants happens. Well, the Bible teaches that not everything God wants happens. In fact, a great number of things God doesn't want happens, and that's why he complains and is angry so often, because he didn't want things to be done that are done.

But Calvinism said no, no, he's just putting on a show there. He really did want it to happen. He decreed it. He could have done it differently if he wanted. Everything happens just as he wants, according to his good pleasure, as the Westminster Confession of Faith says. Everything happens according to God's good pleasure. Okay, well, the Bible doesn't say that, and it doesn't seem to agree with the way God acts in the Bible. Even Jesus wasn't happy about everything that happened, nor Paul, and therefore it would seem like they didn't hold the doctrine that everything's really just going the way God wants it to.

Now, the idea that there is a secret will of God as well as his revealed will, we might say, does not is not based on the idea that there's different Greek words for will. There's a number of Greek words that can be translated will, but they're all more or less the same in meaning. There's not like one of them that speaks of secret will and another one another. It's just that the whole concept of willing, let's face it, we have layers of will.

For example, God wanted people not to sin. That was his will that people not sin. It is his will that we don't sin. It's also his will that we have free choice. His will is that we'll use that free choice not to sin. But because we have free choice, which is also his will, we might end up sinning against what he'd prefer. It's like if you are trying to train your children how to manage money and you say, "Okay, I'm going to give each of you kids $10. And I'd like you to give a dollar to church if you want to. Put aside some money to give to the poor and then spend the rest on good things." And you want your kids to do good things, but you're giving them responsibility, which means you're giving them freedom to do maybe something other than what you'd prefer.

Now, your will that they should have the choice is your overriding will. You have a more negotiable will, I suppose, that they should only give or use their money the right way. But because you have a stronger desire to let them make up their own decisions, you're willing, unfortunately, to have some things you would prefer not happen. And I believe that's how it stands with God. God wanted to make creatures that had free will. This means they could do the wrong thing. He didn't want them to do the wrong thing. He didn't decree that they would do the wrong thing.

There are different layers of will. There's like our dominant desire, our dominant will, and then there's what we really wish would happen and want to see happen, but we would not sacrifice the dominant thing for that lesser thing. So yeah, there's different wills, different degrees of will. But these are not the same categories that Calvinists talk about. Calvinists talk as though God really wants one thing but commands you to do the opposite thing.

In other words, God has two wills that are contrary to each other. And that the Bible does not teach and certainly the Greek words for will would not support that. All right? Okay, I need to go the phones again, and we will talk to Becky in Detroit, Michigan. Becky, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Becky: Hi, thank you. I heard a verse, Matthew at church, and I'm a little perplexed by the meaning. Matthew 24:35, and it says, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." And I guess I'm clinging to the hope of heaven and going there when I die, but when I hear this verse, I think, "Oh, heaven's going to be gone." So can you help me better understand that, please?

Steve Gregg: Well, yeah. I mean, the word "heaven" is used a number of ways in Scripture. Sometimes it just means the sky. Sometimes it means the whole cosmos where the stars are, for example, the heavens. And sometimes it refers to a very different kind of thing, that is the non-physical spiritual realm where God and the angels are. They're not physical beings and they dwell in a non-physical realm. Even outer space is physical. I mean, it's part of the physical universe. And of course, the sky above us where the birds fly and the clouds are, that's closer in and that's sometimes called heaven in the Bible, but it's also a part of the physical universe.

Where God dwells is not part of the physical universe. And that is also referred to as heaven. Now, when you say "I don't want I want to go to heaven when I die, I don't want the heavens to pass away," when Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, heaven and earth means the earth and the sky. It doesn't it doesn't mean the place where God dwells is going to pass away. That's not the heaven that he's talking about.

Now, as far as living in heaven is concerned, the Bible does not indicate that we're going to live forever in heaven, although it's not going to I don't believe the spiritual heavens, I don't think are ever going to pass away. That's not what Jesus was predicting. But I believe we're going to live in the new earth because the Bible indicates, in my understanding, that when a Christian dies, their spirit goes to live in heaven with Christ and with God while he's there. But he's not always going to be there. He's going to come back here. You've heard of the second coming, no doubt. So when Jesus comes back, he's leaving heaven, he's coming to earth, he's going to make a new heavens, new earth, and he's going to dwell on earth and reign over the nations with us. And we're going to reign with him.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek, they shall inherit the earth." That means us. It says in Romans 4:13 that the promise that God made to Abraham and his seed, that they would be heirs of the world, was not made through the keeping of the works of the law, but through the hear of faith. So I mean, God made a promise to man to Abraham that his seed, which is Christ and those of us who are in him, will reign over the world. So it's not really heaven that we'll live in forever, though I don't believe heaven I don't believe the heaven where God is or where the departed saints are now, I don't believe that that's going to pass away. But when Jesus leaves there, so so are the Christians who are there going to leave there to go be with him here on the new earth.

That's why there's a resurrection. You know, some people think, well, if you go to heaven when you die, what do you need to be resurrected for later on on the last day? Well, because you go to heaven non-physical, your body goes in the ground. It doesn't go to heaven when you die. It goes to the worms. Your spirit goes to be with God until Jesus comes back. And then he's going to raise your body from the dead, immortal. Why? Well, because you need a body to live on earth and we're going to live on the new earth. That's what the Bible teaches.

So yeah, Jesus saying heaven and earth will pass away, he's not saying that the heaven that you hope to go to when you die will pass away. He's talking about the sky and the cosmos around us. It'll be it'll pass away and then be renewed. We read in Revelation chapter 20, I think it's in verse 11, it says, "I saw one on the throne from whose face the whole heavens and earth fled away and there's no more place for them." And then a few verses later it says, "I saw a new heavens, new earth," Revelation 21:1, "I saw a new heavens, new earth, and says and the old heavens and old earth had passed away." So Jesus did does predict that they'll pass away. But he's not talking about where God dwells, heaven. But then again, God is going to dwell among us too, on earth. There will still be heavens as far as we know, but it will be it might be irrelevant to us because we're going to be living somewhere else than there forever. That's how I understand what Jesus said. It's yeah, it'd be very strange for him to say, well, you're going to live forever in heaven, but not forever because the heaven's going to actually disappear, then where will you be kind of just hanging out there in limbo? Well, that's you have to understand that heaven doesn't mean the same thing in every place. It context when it's contrasted with earth, I believe it's talk about the sky. Thank you for your call. David in Portland, Oregon. Welcome to the Narrow Path.

David: Hi, Steve. I love you, man. I wanted to mention first off that we went to see the "Story of Everything" yesterday, the movie, and it was very uplifting. We enjoyed it immensely. I would recommend it.

Steve Gregg: I hope to see it. Lots of the people I really like are in it. You there?

David: They're so intelligent and, oh, I just loved it. But my question is that at Bible study that we go to regularly, we're in Daniel, and early part of Daniel. But near the end of it the other day, it was brought up the Third Temple. And I did not realize that Susan and I are the only ones in that group are not dispensationists, I guess. They all agreed on how great this teaching was. And at one point one of them said, "Well, why would we even have Ezekiel if there's not going to be a Third Temple?" I mean, there's no reason for Ezekiel. And I was going to read Ezekiel more thoroughly before I called you, but I have not done that. I have read it, but it's been a while. How would you answer that?

Steve Gregg: Well, first of all, there's no relevance of a third temple to Ezekiel until you get to Chapter 40. So, why do we need the first 39 chapters of Ezekiel, which don't make any allusion at all to a third temple? Well, because they're not about that, and that's fine. But chapters 40 through 47 are about the temple. And 48 goes to the division of the lands and so forth. But chapters 40 through 47 do describe a temple, presumably a third temple.

Because Ezekiel was in Babylon at the time, and the temple that Solomon had built, actually, I was thinking it's actually describing a second temple. I was confused there because the temple that was destroyed was Solomon's temple, which was the first temple. And then there would be a second temple. And then, but some people think that Ezekiel's talking about a third temple.

In my opinion, he's talking about a second temple. So why would he at a time when the second temple was not yet built, totally ignore the whole idea of the second temple and just jump way over that thousands of years to a third temple? Which would be irrelevant by the way because the dispensationists think he's describing a millennial temple, a temple during the millennium. But why would there need to be a temple in the millennium? Jesus has come. The temple sacrifices are obsolete. There's actually the chapters 40 through 47 of Ezekiel describe a temple where the Levitical priests are offering animal sacrifices for an atonement. You can't have that after the cross, you know? And he's not talking about something after the cross.

Now, but dispensationists believe he is. They believe he's talking about a millennial temple someday in the future, which would make it a third one because of course Zerubbabel built a second temple. And that temple was still standing in the days of Jesus, but it was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans. So there's been two temples already. Solomon's temple, which was built, you know, like about 1100 BC and was destroyed in 586 BC. Then Zerubbabel built a temple in 520 BC. And then that one continued into the time of Christ where Herod was working on it to make it bigger and so forth. Herod spent 46 years or some 43 years, I forget the number, building the temple better and so forth, but it was Zerubbabel's temple that was being refurbished. But that temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That was the second temple.

Now, they say, "Well, Ezekiel is talking about a third temple." No, I don't think so. There's not going to be a third temple that God would approve of. Now, the Jews might build a third temple. Some of them would like to. Most Jews in Israel are not the least bit interested in building another temple, but there is a tiny minority there called the Temple Institute that are desiring to build a third temple. Well, they may or they may not, but the Bible doesn't predict it, and it's it would not be something God approves of.

The Jews in Israel are not followers of Christ. They are anti-Jesus. They they reject Christ. And if they build a temple to offer animal sacrifices, that's a thumb to the nose to God, because they're saying we do not accept Jesus as our sacrifice. We're going to go back to the animal sacrifice. That's a total insult. That's giving God the finger. And they might do that because, frankly, many many modern Jews don't mind giving God the finger in that way. But not all, not all. But anyway, any third temple would be just that. And God will never approve of that because Christ has offered himself once for all as a sacrifice to sins. No more animal sacrifices ever.

So what is Ezekiel talking about? Well, some people think he's describing the body of Christ as a spiritual temple using symbolic language and that, you know, we are living stones built into a, you know, a spiritual house and so forth to offer spiritual sacrifices. We're a holy priesthood. So that all this description of temple and priesthood and sacrifices in Ezekiel is just to be understood spiritually. We are that temple today.

However, even if that might be a valid way of looking at it, there's a statement in it in Ezekiel 43, which is in the midst of this description of the temple, that says that Ezekiel was to show these plans to the Jews in Babylon, his contemporaries. And in Ezekiel 43:10 and 11, it says, "Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities, and let them measure the pattern. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple."

Now, that strongly implies that this temple will be relevant to them if they are ashamed, if they're repentant, if they, in other words, if they turn back to God. If they turn back to God, God has a blueprint for the temple that will be built in Jerusalem again. Now, after this time, Zerubbabel did go and build a temple, but it wasn't according to this blueprint. But that's partly because Israel wasn't repentant enough. Only 50,000 even wanted to go back out of probably over a million Jews taken into captivity. Only 50,000 were interested in building the temple or or worshipping God in Jerusalem again. It was definitely not a great turning to God there. So it sounds like it is saying if the people have the proper spiritual response to their former sins, then God has a big plan for a temple for them. But they didn't, and therefore they got a lesser temple. So this I think this is a description of the potential second temple, but they they didn't meet the conditions, so that second temple was not made according to that plan, but something much smaller, much less. But it's not a third temple. There's only two temples in the Bible.

By the way, I wrote an article on this that was published in the Christian Research Journal years ago. If you go to matthew713.com, matthew713.com, there's a category there that says articles. These are articles that I've published in various magazines over the years, and one of them is called something like "What are we to think of Ezekiel's temple" or something like that. And it's a full article on that whole question. You can easily find it. I don't know the exact title of the article, but it mentions Ezekiel's temple as the main theme. It's not hard to find in the list at matthew713.com under articles. All right.

Let's see here. We're going to talk next to Fred in Alameda, California. Fred, welcome.

Fred: Yes, I know you don't have much time, and the guy was the last caller yesterday, but I have a spin-off question. If you look at Job chapter 2, verse 3, compared to all the trouble that David went through because of David's sins. My question is how does one discern in their life whether they're having a hard time because they're being harassed by Satan and they're on the right path or they're having a hard time because they're paying their dues, so to speak, because of their bad behavior?

Steve Gregg: Well, I believe that if you have repented of your sins, God will not have any interest in continuing to punish you. However, you may still suffer consequences of your sins that naturally spring from your choices. Choices are sometimes like dominoes. You know, we we push this one down by our choice and a whole string of them go down just as a natural consequence. That was David's problem. He committed sexual sin, and therefore when his son Amnon committed a sexual sin, raping his sister Tamar, David didn't have the moral authority he felt to even address it. He was angry but he didn't address it. And because he didn't address it, Absalom decided he had to, and so he killed Amnon. And now there's bloodshed in the family as well as a rape. And then Absalom has to flee and so forth. And then Absalom gets angry at David for for not doing the right thing there, and so he eventually rebels against David, and David has to flee. David gets restored to office and then, you know, there's conflict between Solomon and Adonijah and so forth. But these things, these things were like chain reaction from what David did.

Now God forgave David, that is to say God is not going to hold it against David, but he did say "the sword will never depart from your house." It's a prediction, you know, what you did has set a string of events into play that's going to still it's still going to run. And you're going to have to suffer these things. Not because God's punishing you. When you forgive someone, that means you give up your right to punish them. So God didn't punish him.

Now, likewise, some of the things we do, when we if we truly repent and God has forgiven us, that doesn't mean he's going to stop the chain reaction that we started by our actions. If a girl goes out a woman, let's say, commits adultery and it ruins her marriage and she gets pregnant by the other guy, you know, she's going to have a child for the rest of her life, a product of adultery, and she's going to lose the marriage she had and things like that. I mean, those kinds of things, God doesn't just stop those from happening. You know, he lets you what you sow you reap. But God can forgive you so that you'll be saved but and back on good terms, but you're going to now live with the changed circumstances, the new normal that you created by your actions.

So that's, you know, if you're suffering and you say, well, I wonder if I'm suffering because God's angry at me. Well, one way to figure it out is, is God angry at me? Does God have reason to be angry at me? Have I repented of my sin or is there some kind of unrepentant sin that God's kind of still, you know, holding my feet to the fire about? But if I have repented, then I know I know God's not angry at me anymore. I may suffer things that I caused, but that's not his anger.

Now, in Job's case, Job had done nothing. So we know that he was just being tested. And that's what the Bible tells us, that Job was trying to get him to sin and God believed he wouldn't, so so God allowed the test to go to happen. And he recovered. So you know, if you're righteous and suffering, just know you're suffering for righteousness' sake. If you're unrepentant and suffering, well then maybe you're suffering for that reason. The main thing to be concerned about is not where are these sufferings coming from, but am I on good terms with God? And that's an easy step to take if we want to. We can always be on good terms with God. And then if we suffer or not, at least we have God.

I'm out of time. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.