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 taking your calls if you have questions you want to raise for conversation on the air about the Bible, about the Christian faith, about any disagreements you might have with the host. I welcome those calls. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That number again: 844-484-5737. We'll go directly to the phone lines and talk to Denise in Palm Coast, Florida. Hi Denise, welcome to the Narrow Path.

Denise: Hi Steve, it's wonderful to speak with you. My husband and I listen to all of your Narrow Path and then everything read it transcribed on Open Theo. It's been such a blessing to us. Specifically with talk about a third temple which I'll go to my issue or question first and that is that I would propose I don't see scripturally God specifically saying build the first one. So even when you get to the third one and you say, "Yeah, should we, should they, should they not?" You say well let's go back to the second one, should they, should they not? Then you go back to the first. If he didn't say the first one, then it would follow that that really wasn't his original top desire in the first place although he said, "Okay, we've got it now, let's work with it," which he does quite a bit. So I will just yield the floor there and I've thought about this for decades and I push back on myself so I kind of know the scriptures where I say, "Well what about?" I what-about myself.

Steve Gregg: Well, technically you're correct. God never did request a temple to be built. He obviously ordained the Tabernacle to be built at Mount Sinai and as far as we know the Tabernacle probably should have been maintained throughout the entire old covenant history until Jesus would come and fulfill the sacrificial system.

It was David's zeal for God that made him want to build a temple and God made it very clear he didn't ask to have a temple built. But he appreciated David's zeal and said, "Well David, you're not the man to do it. You're a man of blood, you've waged wars. However, I'll let your son build the temple for me." And so Solomon did build the temple. So in a sense, God authorized it though he hadn't brought the matter up initially.

Now we do read in Chronicles that God gave David by revelation the plans for the temple just like he gave Moses the plans for the temple by the pattern which Moses saw on the mountaintop. So God must have gotten into the project if he gave David plans for it. But you're right, God never asked for the temple to be built. It was David's idea and God didn't see fit to have David do it. But since David wanted it done, God, we might say, placated him and said, "Well you can't do it but I'll let your son do it."

Now I guess somebody could suggest that the son of David that was to build the temple mentioned in 2 Samuel chapter 7 verse 12 where God said, "I didn't ask you to build me a house but I'll build you a house and I'm going to your son will sit on the throne after you and he will build a house unto my name." That obviously has always been seen as a messianic prophecy. The Jews recognized it as such, so do Christians. And yet Solomon sat on his father's throne as a picture, I suppose a type of Christ, and he did build a temple.

Although if the prophecy that God gave to David was meant to only be messianic and not to be a statement about Solomon, then the temple that Jesus built would be the temple of his body which is the church made of living stones according to Peter in 1 Peter 2:5. When Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will build it again," obviously Jesus claimed that he would build a temple and he was the son of David many generations removed and that temple he was speaking of was his body.

And not only did he raise his body from the dead but he also built a temple of living stones which is identified with his body today, the church. So there's a possibility that the prediction that David's son would build a house to the Lord's name is what the way it's worded in Samuel really didn't even include Solomon necessarily. But I'm going to have to push back on that suggestion because if he didn't intend for Solomon to build the temple, then I don't know why he would have revealed the plans for the temple to David to hand down to Solomon. It seems as though God gave his okay on Solomon building the temple even though it wasn't God's idea in the first place.

And that would be what we call the first temple, of course. Now after the destruction of that temple in 586 BC by the Babylonians, God did predict that the temple would be rebuilt and it was by Zerubbabel. So I guess once they had a temple God was in on it, God was in on the project and even after it was destroyed he allowed them to rebuild it. And of course that one was destroyed in AD 70 and that was the second temple.

And you were mentioning a lot of people talk about a third temple coming. The Bible does not mention a third temple. I don't say there won't be one. It's just that the Bible doesn't mention one. People think it does when they read Ezekiel 40 through 47 or when they read Zechariah 14 or when they read 2 Thessalonians 2. There certainly are references to a temple there. But in the context of those prophecies, I don't believe we can say that those are referring to a future third temple. Each one of those prophecies has to be interpreted in its own context and those are as far as I know the only places in the Old Testament or the New that people ever use to say there's going to be a third temple.

Sometimes people think the temple that John measured in Revelation chapter 11 verse 1 and 2 is a third temple in the future but I believe it's the temple that was standing in the first century, the second temple. So there's a lot of people who've assumed there will be a third temple and some of them have built their whole hopes, in fact their whole expectations about the fulfillment of last days prophecies on this idea that the Jews will build a third temple. There simply is no unambiguous statement in the Bible that speaks of a third temple and in my opinion none of the ambiguous passages that are used to speak of it, none of them really are talking about that. They all have different subject matter as we can see when we look at them in context.

Denise: So I would go back to the first one because the third becomes moot and with the second I've got a point on that but then I go back to the first. So when you really drill down on who's saying what to whom, it's David saying to Solomon that God said. But you don't see ever it saying God said. You just see David running with zeal and then adding a little bit more to it like, "Did he say you can't eat it? No we can't even touch it." Just like that add-on, add-on. So 1 Chronicles 22, David says to Solomon that God said to David.

Steve Gregg: Wait a minute. Are you saying that David is lying to Solomon?

Denise: No, heavens no. Not lying at all. He so originally his heart and his zeal said to Nathan, "I've got this thing in my heart and I'm going to build it." And so and Nathan said, "Go for it," because of course you just you're encouraging.

Steve Gregg: Yeah, I know and we can't really tell that whole story now because my lines are full. But so the point you're making is that you don't think God did instruct Solomon to make the temple.

Denise: Well for you just we'll put a pin in it. Go back and find because God was meticulous with his descriptive and prescriptive to Moses on what to do. And then think about the New Testament, look at how Tabernacle is used by the apostles and by Jesus versus Temple. Think about the Temple, what it was, was built with foreign money by slaves, it was stone, it was it was copied after the culture of the day versus the Tabernacle which was skin.

Steve Gregg: Okay, so so it sounds like you're saying when David said that God revealed by revelation the plans for the first temple and gave them to Solomon, that David was actually not really telling the truth about that. That he was kind of lying.

Denise: So look into the I'm not saying anything. I'm just saying that it says David says to Solomon that God said to David. The other and I'll finish on this because I would love for you to keep digging in because I know you're a digger-inner. When Nathan, I love this one thing about David, I know I love a lot about David, his heart for God. Let's make it quicker please. Go ahead and give me your point. I don't even need to make the point. When David sinned, the son in line of Jesus is Nathan that he named after the prophet that called him out. Solomon is it's man's ways, God's ways, Tabernacle with you, dwell with you versus I'm going to set up something that looks like the world. So I defer to you and I'm going to let you go. Thanks for your time.

Steve Gregg: Okay, thanks for your call. Yeah, it sounds like your argument is that we're not told in the Bible by the narrators that God spoke to David about this, but we only have David's own statements about it to Solomon which you're saying we can't trust. I don't know. I don't think we need for the Bible to tell us more than what David said unless, of course, the Bible gave some reason to distrust David on the matter. And I don't know that there's any reason to distrust David's words on this. I don't think David lied to Solomon because we do know from 2 Samuel 7:12 that God did say that David's son who would sit on the throne after him would build a house unto his name.

Now he didn't describe the house in detail but if later on we're told in Chronicles that God did actually reveal the pattern of the house to David, I guess I take his word for it. I'm not really sure of any reason to say it isn't so. It did become a more permanent structure than the Tabernacle was. Like I said, there's no evidence that God's initial idea was to replace the Tabernacle with a temple and he may have done that as a concession to David, it sounds like. But on the other hand, I don't really read of any disapproval on God's part of it. And it sounded like once God made the promise to David that God was in on the project.

But I will say this as Stephen said in Acts chapter 7, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands. Any temple or Tabernacle that was ever built was only an emblem of a house of God and a type and a shadow of the body of Christ which is the true temple. All right, I appreciate your call. Let's talk next to Stephen in Ontario, Canada. Stephen, welcome.

Stephen: Hi Steve, thank you for taking my call. I'm going to my question. So I'm reading from Gospel according to John chapter 3 verses 5 and 6. "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh and what is born of the spirit is spirit.'" Could you please tell me your interpretation of that water and spirit? What does it mean? I've researched different opinions but I cannot make up my mind.

Steve Gregg: Okay. Well, as you probably know because you say you've researched it, it's a very common thing for teachers to say that being born of water and the spirit is a reference being baptized in water and in the spirit. There's a number of people I've run into, commentators, I guess the first person I ever encountered that's held that view, and I was a Christian arguing with them about other things, was a Mormon who the first person I encountered who thought that being born of water means baptized in water. I thought it was a Mormon doctrine because it seemed so off to me. But then I found out it's a very common Evangelical position as well. So it's a very widely held that being born of water and of the spirit refers to being baptized in water and the spirit.

Now I don't know how Jesus would have expected Nicodemus to make that connection. They weren't talking about baptism. Jesus didn't mention baptism in any unambiguous terms. And Jesus did say you have to be born again. Now that suggests you were born once already and now you need to be born a second time. So there are two births. One is the one that Nicodemus already had experienced and he certainly hadn't been baptized. Well, he could have been, he could have been one of those people who went out and was baptized by John but there's no indication that that is so. He was of that group that largely resisted John. He was an exception.

The point is that there's no suggestion he was ever baptized. And yet Jesus suggested that there's only one more birth he needed and that was to be born of the spirit. And then Jesus talked about two births because that's what he just first said, you need to be born again. So Nicodemus had one birth which was natural birth and he needed a second birth which was a spiritual birth. And when Nicodemus pushes back and wants more information, Jesus talks about two kinds of birth. In the first time he speaks of it there in verse 5, he speaks of it as being born of water and born of the spirit. So one of the births is of water and one is of the spirit.

Now he also talks about these two births in the next verse. He said that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. So all through this he's talking about two births. One is the one that Nicodemus and all of us have already had. That's being born of the flesh. It is contrasted with a second birth which is being born of the spirit. That makes me think that when he mentions these two in verse 5 and calls them born of water and of the spirit, that this could be suggesting that physical birth is being described as being born of the water. It's an unusual way to talk, but it'd be also unusual to talk about baptism as a birth. I mean, there's really nothing that John the Baptist said or that Jesus is said that would equate baptism with birth.

So I'm thinking Nicodemus wouldn't have made that connection. But if Jesus is saying there's two births, born of the water and born of the spirit, and the next verse says let's call them being born of the flesh and born of the spirit, then he's using born of water as a reference to physical birth. And the suggestion by those who hold this view like myself is that it must maybe refer to the breaking of the waters when a child is being born, the woman's waters break and that indicates that the baby's on its way out. So it's still a strange thing to call it being born of water. But I think less strange than referring to baptism as being born of water.

If you're accustomed to thinking of that then it might not seem strange. I'm trying to put myself in Nicodemus's place and Jesus was surprised that Nicodemus didn't understand. So there must have been something about Jesus' statements that should be understandable to someone like Nicodemus. So I just think there's two births. One is physical birth and one is born of the spirit. And so when he mentions born of water and the spirit, I think born of water probably stands in for the next verse that calls it born of the flesh or physically born.

Now there is another position that makes sense to me that's neither of the ones we've discussed. And that is because Jesus did seem surprised that Nicodemus didn't understand what he was talking about. Some feel that Jesus is alluding to Ezekiel 36. And there it says in verse 25 and 26 and 27, Ezekiel 36:25-27 says, "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you and you shall be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and a new spirit within you and I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes."

Now I think most Evangelical Christians recognize this as a prediction of the new birth, of regeneration, of coming to know Christ and being cleansed and inhabited by his spirit. Now notice there is water mentioned here. So I will sprinkle clean water on you and you'll be clean and then I'll put my spirit within you and I'll make give you a new heart and new spirit which sounds like maybe a new person, a new birth. So some feel, and there is to my mind probably more merit in this suggestion, it's alternative to what I've suggested as my position, but there's more merit in it than in the whole idea of identifying them with baptism, that Jesus saying to Nicodemus, there's one birth you are lacking. You need to be born again. That one birth is a birth of water and spirit and it's not being born of the flesh, it's being born of the spirit.

And born of water and spirit would then be seen as an allusion to this regeneration spoken of in Ezekiel which mentioned a cleansing of water and a giving of the spirit. Now some might say that cleansing of water is baptism. Well, a person could say that if they wanted to. Baptism in the Bible is immersion, that's what the word baptize means in Greek, it means to immerse. And as near as we can tell, the early Christians baptized by immersion. That's why the Ethiopian eunuch said, "Here's some water, what hinders me from being baptized?"

If it didn't require a puddle of water somewhere to immerse him in, they could have just poured water from a water bottle over his head which I'm sure he was traveling through the desert with. The idea is it took a little more water than would be required to pour over the head. In fact, the early church in the book the Didache gives instructions about baptism and this is a first-century or early second-century document. And it says baptism should be done, it says in cold water or if that's not available it could be in warm water. And it says and if there's not enough water, then just pour water over the head and say I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

This is the instructions in one of the earliest Christian documents. Notice it said if there's not enough water for ordinary baptism, then just pour water over the head. Meaning ordinary baptism would require more water than is used in pouring water over the head, presumably because you need to be immersed in it. And that's what again the word baptism means.

So I don't think sprinkling mentioned in Ezekiel is referring to baptism. I think it's referring to the fact that things in the old covenant were sprinkled with water and with blood when they were cleansed. And it's just referring to being ceremonially cleansed as an emblem of being spiritually cleansed. Anyway, it may be a little deeper going a little deeper than what we'd prefer to go but I actually see it as a reasonable suggestion that being born of water and the spirit means that's one birth that includes water and spirit as mentioned in Ezekiel 36:25-27. So those are some views on it. I'm inclined to think born of water refers to physical birth. But if that is not the correct interpretation, then I'm going to probably move toward the idea that there's one second birth which is of water and the spirit and that that's what Jesus would be referring to in verse 5. Obviously as you researched, you know there's other views.

Stephen: Steve, may I ask you a follow-up question? Quick one. Sure. So I was meditating on this verse yesterday and it came into my mind. So since like very important conditions for entering the kingdom of God, so you got to know what they are. So being born of water and spirit. I kind of agree with you, that's what the first thing I thought is in context of the following verse that it was physical birth and spiritual birth. So my question was next: what's happening with the human beings at embryonic stage that are actually not born? Can they enter the kingdom of God if they actually not born of water which is they were not born of flesh?

Steve Gregg: Well, that is not in the purview of Jesus' statement. He's not talking about babies, not even talking to a baby, he's talking to a man about the man's need to be born again. He says you must be born again. So obviously a man can be born of the spirit and a baby I don't think can be born of the spirit. But in resurrection on the last day, perhaps that would be a birth in the spirit might take the place of it. But I don't think Jesus is trying to line up a checklist of things you have to do to be saved. I think to be saved, what you have to do is surrender to Jesus Christ, period.

If a child is too young to do that, then I believe they are innocent by default and I don't think they're lost for it. Now perhaps when they see Jesus in the resurrection or whatever, maybe they'll be given the opportunity to receive him or they'll just be uncondemned because they never committed any sins. I don't know, that's not spoken of in the Bible. Although I do believe it is spoken of in the Bible that babies who die are innocent and therefore not damned. But exactly how that all is going to work out for them and whether they'll be resurrected as babies or adults or whatever, people have asked those questions.

These are matters of curiosity that we can't answer. But one thing is sure that if Jesus elsewhere if the Bible elsewhere says that we have to believe in him, whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved, we have to repent and become surrendered to him. Well, I believe that when that happens, that's when we are born again. I don't think we have to be told how to be born again specifically. That's something God does. We can't born ourselves again, we can't birth ourselves again. So it's our faith and our repentance and our turning to Christ, the whole project of turning to Christ in submission to his lordship is what is expected of us. Rebirth is what God does that he births us again into the kingdom. Regardless of what is meant by born of the water, we will be born of the spirit because we turn to Christ.

So I don't think that Jesus is saying, "Okay, let me make a list of things you have to do to get saved. Here's one of them: get born of water, then get born of the spirit and then do this and this and this." I think that how could if someone told me "get born of the spirit," how do I do that? I don't even have any idea. That's something God does. So maybe he births babies of the spirit too when they die. I don't know the answer to that. But I am quite sure from numerous other passages of scripture which we didn't consider just now but there's a whole case to be made that babies when they die are innocent before God and therefore they are not damned. But they may miss out on some of the rewards and so forth that a person would experience if they lived and served God. That we are not told. But I'm willing to let God know that and be ours to find out. I appreciate your call. I need to take a break here. We got another half hour coming up. You're listening to the Narrow Path.

Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we've got another half hour coming up to take your calls if you have questions you want to raise for conversation on the air about the Bible or the Christian faith or anything related thereto. The number to call is 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Joel calling from Elk, Washington. Hi Joel, welcome.

Joel: Hi Steve. I was at your Q&A in Spokane a little more than a week ago. And in answering the very last question, you suggested that there was a difference for people who kind of grew up in the Western world with Western Christianity compared to those who grew up with Eastern Christianity. Could you explain some of the difference that you see between those perspectives and what people might view differently?

Steve Gregg: Well, Catholic and Eastern Christianity, both they're different from each other but they're similar to each other in many ways in which they differ from what we'd call Western Evangelicalism. They have different practices. They have certain different theological viewpoints. I mean they even differ from each other in points that don't really matter in many respects. I mean the Catholic Church and Eastern Church divided from each other in the 11th century over the matter of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or comes from the Father and the Son, which strikes me as a niggling point and a splitting of hairs for churches to divide over.

But they both groups have images. I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church have icons that are pictures on wood of saints and so forth drawn in Byzantine art style and then Roman Catholics have statues and they even disagreed over that, whether they should have statues or icons. Of course Evangelicals would say neither since we're not supposed to make images and bow to them or anything like that. They have a eucharistic idea of the sacrament as they call it, that the body and blood of Christ, the real presence of Christ's body and blood are in the elements. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both believe those things. They differ with each other on some things. The Eastern don't have a Pope which the Catholics do.

But all of those things, I mean even those things which the Eastern and the Catholic are similar to each other are different from Western Evangelicalism. So when I say people who grew up in an Evangelical church are have perhaps a different approach to things than those who are raised in a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox church. Now if you're wondering whether I think any of those things are pivotal to salvation, I don't think they have to be. I think a person who loves Christ and is following him is doing what the Bible commands people to do in that respect. And I think we're saved by trusting in Christ and by being loyal to Christ.

Now people who are saved and loyal to Christ are actually found in many churches: Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and many different Protestant churches. Each of these groups have some things they differ with each other on. Some are very significantly divisive, some of them are probably tolerable among the groups. But it's just, you know, I can't tell you what it's like to grow up in the Eastern Orthodox church because I didn't and I don't know it from the inside. I've been inside of an Eastern Orthodox church but not during a service so I have no idea how the services are conducted. But they're very formal, I believe, and they're very liturgical just like the Roman Catholic church is.

And most Evangelical churches in the West are not. So it's just different styles of worship, they have some different beliefs about some things. In my opinion, their beliefs about Christ are sufficient to save them if they surrender to him and are loyal to him. And I believe there's people in every church who've done that. I also believe there's people in every church who haven't done that and the people who are saved are the ones who have done that. So I don't consider the church of Jesus Christ to be co-extensive with the boundaries of any particular group or the membership of any particular group. It's a spiritual communion of those who've had a spiritual experience of rebirth and who are surrendered to Christ and following him deliberately as their head, they are his body. And so that's all over the country, all over the world, they're in many different fellowships. They have different doctrines on a number of different things. But none of those things matter supremely so long as a person is surrendered to Christ and consciously following him loyally and trusting him. That's what being a Christian is.

Now, when I see all these differences that exist even among people who are saved don't matter as the chief priorities, that doesn't mean they don't matter at all. I believe there's much to be said for believing what's true as opposed to something that isn't true. Jesus said the truth will make you free. It seems to me like the more you believe of the truth, the more you know and believe the truth, the more you are free in the sense that Jesus came to make you free, free indeed he said. So if you don't hold the truths correctly of some of them, even if you're a follower of Jesus and even if you're going to heaven, I think you can be in bondage, in bondage to traditions that aren't true and so forth. So I mean there is a difference there but it's not a salvific difference as far as I'm concerned. Of course God's the judge of that, not me.

Joel: Okay, great. I appreciate the response.

Steve Gregg: Okay Joel, good talk to you. All right, let's talk to Brian from Nashville, Tennessee next. Brian, welcome.

Brian: Hey Steve, how are you?

Steve Gregg: I'm well, thanks.

Brian: So about once a month I get the chance about one Sunday and one Wednesday, so twice a month, I get the chance to teach at my church. There's only one that I think is very well-studied on their beliefs in dispensationalism and premillennialism. For several years I've been listening to you and doing my own study and I feel like I know it decent, of course not as well as you or if I had decades. But there's been times to where I've had the platform to teach and I've prepared two lessons and one was in Matthew 24 and then another was Job and it wasn't related to eschatology or anything. And when I got up there I guess you could say maybe it was Holy Spirit, maybe it was just me getting cold feet, I went with the message in Job rather than the eschatology. There's really only one lady that is very well-studied in her ideas of dispensationalism and premillennialism that I think will be there to give pushback. So if I do decide "Okay, now I'm going to do it, I'm going to teach," where would you suggest that I start? Because she does know the idea of amillennialism and of course what they call "replacement theology." But I'm not sure if she knows John Darby and the 1830s and then Scofield Study Bible in 1905 or somewhere around that time.

Steve Gregg: 1909, yeah.

Brian: If you had 45 minutes to start the topic and maybe continue it a few weeks down the line, how would you do it? Where would you start?

Steve Gregg: Are you talking about teaching the Olivet Discourse or just the whole category of eschatology?

Brian: That was just one example that I had thought of but I think breaking the dispensationalism is kind of key before you go into the premillennial and amillennial, maybe I'm wrong on that. But the idea of the church not being Israel and just the idea of what Israel is I think would be a more important topic to tackle. So not Matthew 24, you can leave that.

Steve Gregg: Is your church strongly dispensational or is it just that lady who is strongly dispensational?

Brian: Well I would say that she teaches a lot and there's times where she'll teach on the millennial reign and things regarding premillennialism and dispensationalism. The pastor himself never preaches on eschatology or anything and I've discussed with him and after maybe a year of private conversation he came to me and let me know that he now believes that those that are faithful to Christ are the true Israel, but he's not sure about the end times theology, his eschatology, he said he just isn't sure about that yet. And I've discussed it with him and he gave me permission to teach the counter side of dispensationalism, what I'd call fulfillment theology, he's given me permission to do that. I think most of the congregation that will be there, they've been taught premillennialism and dispensationalism as the standard. I don't think that most of them really know much about the other side.

Steve Gregg: That's probable. Well I'll tell you, I don't know what to say in 45 minutes. I will say this: that my own views, my own departure from dispensationalism began without my realizing that's what it was. That is, I didn't know I was departing from dispensationalism. It just began by my study of the New Testament and the way that the New Testament writers quoted Old Testament passages and how they applied them. It became clear that they were applying Old Testament passages that in their original context seemed to apply to Israel, they were applying them to themselves.

Now of course the apostles and the Jerusalem church, they were the remnant of Israel. I mean they were Jews and they were the ones who followed the Messiah. The Jews that rejected the Messiah were apostate Israel. So it was natural enough for the Christians in Jerusalem to see themselves as the faithful remnant of Israel. And by the way, one way you might go on this is to teach about the nature of the remnant of Israel. There's a number of Old Testament passages that are useful for that, a number of them are in Micah, some are in Zephaniah, certainly one in Isaiah chapter 10 that Paul quotes in Romans 9. These could you could point out from these and other passages that the promises God made to Israel are to the faithful remnant and that God has never made any promises to the unfaithful, to the rebellious who are not his loyalists.

So I mean you could certainly find places throughout the Old Testament where Israel who was not faithful was not God's people. Hosea chapter 1 and 2 make that very clear. God tells them, "You're not my people" because of their idolatry and so forth and he's talking to Israel. So I you know you might go there. That's a good starting point. I moved from dispensationalism by noticing that the early Christians, the apostles and the New Testament writers, applied passages originally to Israel to themselves as the faithful remnant of Israel, which later included Gentiles. But for many years the church was just Jewish people, faithful Jews, they were the faithful remnant.

The addition of Gentiles to them didn't make them anything else than the faithful remnant, just made the remnant include Gentiles too. It's just like adding wild branches to the olive tree that was Israel. And so to show that and then and then of course to show what Paul said in Romans 9 about they are not all Israel who are of Israel and in Romans 9:27 where he points out that the Bible teaches, the Old Testament teaches, that only the remnant of Israel will be saved. I mean the point here is that it what people call replacement theology, obviously you know I don't approve of that label because it doesn't describe the theology at all. I would like to refer to it as you said either fulfillment theology or remnant theology. It's the theology of the remnant.

And so you'd get a real good I don't see how anyone could disagree with you if you trace the idea of the remnant in the Old Testament. And that's what Paul does in Romans 9 at the beginning there after verse 6 he talks about how, yeah Abraham had a lot of kids, but only one of his children, Isaac, was the promised seed. The others, Ishmael and the six children he had by Keturah, they were also sons of Abraham but they weren't the promised seed. So obviously not everyone who's born of Abraham is the promised seed. And then he points out that not even everyone who's born of Isaac was promised. Jacob and Esau both came from Isaac and only Jacob was and Esau was not, which is pointing out that the promise God made to Abraham and his seed did not include everyone of his seed.

But in every generation there were some or even one of Abraham's seed that was the chosen and the other children of Abraham were not. And Paul argues that in the opening of chapter 9, not the first five verses but the next five, and points out that God never did have promises made to everybody who's descended from Abraham. And John the Baptist said to the Jews, "Do not think to say within yourselves 'we have Abraham as our father'" as if that gave them some kind of special status. He said God could from these stones raise up children to Abraham. Which means yeah, being a child of Abraham in a physical sense it doesn't count anymore than being a stone would count as a child of Abraham if God wished it.

And of course in John 8 Jesus said he said to the Jews, "I know you're descended from Abraham but if you were the children of Abraham you'd do the works of Abraham." So he's saying you people are physically descended from Abraham but you're not really the children of Abraham in any sense that God has to recognize because you're not like Abraham. So I mean Jesus does that, Galatians chapter 3 Paul makes it very clear only those who are of the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham. This is a very easy thing to prove from the Old and the New Testament. So and this is technically remnant theology, which the lady in your church might call replacement theology, but it's really simply biblical theology. It's simply the theology of the Old and the New Testament combined and of Jesus. Jesus taught it, Paul taught it, Peter taught it. Nobody taught something else. Nobody in the Bible taught that every Jewish person whether they're faithful or not will have the promises. The promises are to the faithful and there's lots of passages that say that. You know my lectures "What Are We to Make of Israel?" go into this stuff at the website. That's where I'd go. That's where I'd start.

Brian: Okay, great. I appreciate the response. Thank you, Steve. So just to clarify, would you leave out the history of the Scofield Bible and stuff for the introduction?

Steve Gregg: I would. I would not go into Darby or Scofield because it's a distraction. I mean it's clear, I mean you might mention just in passing there have been a lot of teachers since 1830 beginning with John Nelson Darby and including Scofield and others who have taught otherwise than this and their view is called dispensationalism. I'd just go that far and say however it was a new view in the early 19th century, most Christians never believed it and still don't. A lot of them do, but here's what I think the Bible teaches about the remnant of Israel.

Brian: Okay. Thank you so much, Steve.

Steve Gregg: Okay Brian, God bless. All right, Jacob from Isanti, Minnesota. Hello Jacob, welcome.

Jacob: Thanks for taking my call, Steve. I had a follow-up discussion comment that I'd like to make on a question that was asked yesterday about the day the earth stood still. And I also do have a question after that that I'd like to ask. It wasn't mentioned yesterday that when the Israelites fought the battle with their enemies it says later on in the passage that God hurled down hailstones from the sky and that more were killed with stones than were by the sword. So I'd like your comments on that. And I also had a question about the dream that Abraham has or the vision with the smoking furnace passing through the carcasses and I'm wondering if you would speculate that there's any parallels between the Israelites actually passing through the Red Sea following the smoke and the fire. I'll take my comments off the air.

Steve Gregg: All right, thanks for your call. Well, as far as more of the enemy being killed by the hailstones than than by the weapons of Israel, I don't have much to say about that except that it's a statement of fact. And I don't know how many people were killed by the Israelites and how many by the hailstones nor do I know why it would matter to me. But I mean I don't have any insights into any special meanings of that. Obviously it makes it very clear that when Israel was obeying God and fighting his battles that God worked with them. Just like it says in Mark chapter 16 when the apostles went out and preached the gospel it says God worked with them confirming the word with signs following. So the miracles that God did through them was helping them out. They preached and they were up against some pretty stiff opposition so God helped them out and gave miraculous confirmations of them. So kind of the same thing when Israel was penetrating the Promised Land, God helped them. They had to fight, they had to do the thing, but they weren't left alone to do it on their own power and God worked with them. So that'd be I guess a parallel I would see.

Now the reference you're making to the sacrifice that Abraham offered, let me just give the context for this because many dispensationalists especially believe that this is saying that God has an unconditional covenant with Abraham's seed. Now maybe he does since the Abraham seed is Christ and his disciples, I've gotten no problem with saying this is true. But they get this partly from this dream or vision that Abraham had and I just think they misunderstand what the dream is.

God told Abraham in chapter 15 of Genesis on verse 9, "Bring me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon." So he did bring those things and he cut them in two and he put the pieces across from each other with a gap between them but it says he didn't cut the birds in two. Now it's clear that Abraham is setting things up for there to be a covenant. In ancient Mesopotamian world and the ancient Near East, people made covenants by cutting an animal in two and then the two parties that were making the contract with each other would pass between the pieces. And we know from secular archaeology and findings about these practices that this meant, "I'm making this promise to you and if I break it, may I be cut in two like these animals are." So this is the meaning of the passing through the pieces.

Now we read that Abraham didn't pass through these animals. And it says in when the sun was going down, verse 12, a deep sleep fell upon Abraham and behold a horror and great darkness fell upon him. Then God said to Abraham, "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs," referring to Egypt of course, "and will serve them and they will afflict them for 400 years and when the nation whom they serve and also the nation whom they serve I will judge," as he did in the ten plagues in Exodus, "afterward they shall come out with great possessions," which they did with Moses. "Now as for you, you shall go to your father in peace, you shall be buried at a good old age. But in the fourth generation," which in the context means after 400 years, "they shall return here for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." So he's saying, "I'm going to give your seed the land here. First they're going to go into Egypt or into a foreign land for 400 years, then I'll bring them out and I'll bring them back to the land." So this is all part of the land promise. God made a promise that Abraham's seed would inherit the land but he's saying, "Here, first it won't be immediate. There's going to be some hard times they're going to go through for a few centuries in Egypt and then they'll have the land."

Now it says and it came to pass, verse 17, when the sun went down and it was dark that behold there was a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. Now that's interesting because usually if God's making a promise or a covenant with Abraham, you'd think God and Abraham would go between those pieces because the covenant would be between them. Here we don't see God or Abraham going through these animals, we see two objects: a smoking oven and a burning torch.

Now the common view that I mostly hear people say is that the smoking oven represents God the Father and the burning torch represents Jesus and that Jesus and the Father are covenanting here together and Abraham is just a bystander so he's not involved, he doesn't have anything to do with it. But this is an unconditional covenant Abraham doesn't have to do anything to keep it and God and Jesus have covenanted this together. And this explanation seems to go unchallenged every time it's given. I challenge it for the simple reason that I mean I heard it for years and I at first I believed it. Then I thought, well why would someone interpret it that way? Where in the Bible does God describe himself as a smoking oven and where is Jesus described as a burning torch? Now Jesus is the light of the world so maybe we could get that one but where is God a smoking oven?

Now I will say this: those terms are used elsewhere in the scripture to represent something but not God. For example, the oven, well let's put it this way, in Deuteronomy 4:20 and in two other places in the Old Testament the Egyptian captivity, the 400 years they spent in Egypt is called the iron furnace, which is not quite the same thing as a smoking oven but it's it's like a hot a hot place to be. God says that when Moses brought the people out of Egypt to Israel that he brought them out of the iron furnace it says. Now then it says and this the other thing was a burning torch. Now God's salvation of Israel is actually referred to as a burning torch in Isaiah 62:1.

So we're not told anywhere that this represents God and Jesus. It could represent the captivity in Egypt and God's deliverance of them, which is what he just spoke about in words in the previous verses. In other words, he's giving a visual aid to what he's just said, which is said as your offspring will go into Egypt or into a foreign country for 400 years and then I'll save them and bring them back here. Since his bringing them out of Egypt is later three times in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy and Jeremiah and 1 Kings, referred to as a iron furnace, he brought them out of the iron furnace. And his very deliverance of his people in Isaiah 62:1 is called a burning torch. That he's talking about the deliverance from Egypt here and I don't see anything that would point to it being God or Jesus in this picture. And I so I just see it as a visual image confirming what God said in words in the previous verses.

Well, I'm out of time, I'm sorry to say. However, this is only Wednesday. We got a couple more days this week. We're on Monday through Friday if you're not familiar with the program. We're called the Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg. I host it every day for the past 29 years. We are listener supported. If you'd like to help us stay on the air, you can write to the Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California 92593. You can also go to our website which is loaded with resources, all of them are free, nothing for sale. You can donate there if you wish at thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.