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. We've been doing this for a long time, three decades now, daily taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith that you'd like to talk about, discuss it here on the air. That's what you can do, call in and do that. If you disagree with the host, you can call in and talk about that too. I'd be glad to hear about that. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. I'm looking at maybe two open lines on our switchboard, so you could get through if you call right now. 844-484-5737.

We have a men's Bible study in Temecula the third Saturday of every month. That's Temecula, California, in Southern California. If you're a man and want to join us, you're welcome. We'd love to have you. The directions to the place or the address is found at our website, thenarrowpath.com under announcements. All right, we're going to talk to Alan calling from Juliet, Georgia. Alan, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Alan: Thank you, brother. Question for you concerns two verses out of Matthew. I'm studying the differences between the preterist view and the futurist view. On my way to a preterist view, I've got two confusing verses, though. One is Matthew 23:39: "For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" I hope you could explain that one. And then if you have time or if you choose, Luke 21:35: "For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth." I'm kind of trying to understand those two in the preterist view. Could you help me with that?

Steve Gregg: Sure, sure. I'm sure we could. What is the verse number in Luke 21? Okay, I'll talk about both of these. In Matthew 23:39, Jesus says to the scribes and Pharisees, and I guess anyone else within earshot who's on their side, the Jews who are rejecting Christ, he says, "For I say to you, you shall see me no more until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

By the way, there had been a very large group of Jewish people in Jerusalem who had said those very words a few days earlier during the triumphal entry. Jesus was riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, and the crowds were saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Now Jesus is telling these unbelieving Jews, "You're not going to see me anymore until you are able to say the same thing those people said. That is, until you recognize me as the Messiah."

Now, there are people, and I think maybe the reason you're having trouble with this, there are people who are dispensationalists who say, "See, Jesus is predicting that someday all the Jews are going to say 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' That is, there's going to be a conversion of the Jewish nation." I say, "Where is that found?" Usually, this is where they look for it: this verse. Jesus said to them, "For I say to you, you shall see me no more until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

Jesus had been teaching in the temple every day of that week, this Passion Week, but this is going to be the last time he would do so. He's not going to be publicly appearing there anymore prior to his crucifixion. Some people say he's saying that someday the Jews are going to say, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," and they're not going to see him until then. So they say that must be at the second coming because then every eye will see him, even those who pierced him. Some take this verse to be saying at the second coming of Christ, the Jews will repent and convert and acknowledge Jesus.

That would be a wonderful thing if that happened. I'd love for that to happen. In fact, I'd love for that to happen long before he comes back. I'm sure God would love for that to happen too. But does he predict any such thing? No. He's basically saying, "I'm not going to be publicly appearing as I have been regularly again, and so you won't see me anymore unless you convert, or until you convert."

It's like if I would say to a friend I've been witnessing to for a long time and he's been very stubborn, and I said, "Listen, you're never going to get saved until you're ready to say Jesus is Lord." I'm not predicting that he will say that. I'm just saying that unless he does, he's not going to get saved. "Until you do this" is stating that as a condition for it. Like if a father said to his child at the dinner table, "You're not going to have any dessert until you finish all the food on your plate." Is he predicting that the child is going to have dessert? Not really. Is he predicting that the child is going to finish all the food on his plate? No, he's not predicting that either. When he says, "You're not going to have any dessert until you finish all that food," he's saying if you never finish that food, you'll never have any dessert.

Jesus was not going to be making public appearances anymore, although these Jews did see him again a few days later when he was hanging on the cross. Many of them did because he was crucified publicly just three days later. So they did see him again, but not in the sense that he means it. The way he means it is in a sense that only Christians see him, and they will not see him in that sense until and unless they convert.

Why do I say he means in the way that only Christians see him? Because in the Upper Room a few nights later, in John 14, Jesus was with his disciples and he says in verse 19, "A little while longer and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also." It says in verse 22, Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us and not to the world?" Jesus answered in verse 23, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."

He's talking about, of course, indwelling us. If you're a follower of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, God will come and make his home in you. That's how the disciples will see him in a way the world can't, with an inner awareness. In Hebrews, it says that we see Jesus in Hebrews 2. We don't see the fulfillment of all things yet, but we do see Jesus in a sense that the world does not. It's a spiritual sight that he's talking about, of course.

He spoke of such sight on other occasions in the Gospel of John. For example, when he healed the blind man, he later said, "For judgment I have come into the world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." He's not talking about literal blindness here. Maybe that those who are blind may see is talking about that, but he's saying that those who are seeing may become blind. To see is often a spiritual thing.

Jesus is saying when he says, "You won't see me anymore, you guys, because you're unbelievers, you won't see me anymore," meaning as I'm visible to you today, as I'm among you today, as I'm publicly displaying my ministry before you, that's not going to happen anymore. You won't be seeing me like that anymore. If you want to see me again, you're going to have to say, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Now, he doesn't predict that the whole nation would. He doesn't even predict that any of these people would. He's just saying that they're not going to see him again until they do. And maybe they will or maybe they won't.

Even if we do take it as a prediction, which would be ridiculous because most of these people did not say that before they saw him again hanging on a cross, he's not speaking of the whole nation of Israel. He's talking to the scribes and the Pharisees as individuals. So his statement does not make any predictions about Israel as a nation becoming converted. If the Bible spoke of it elsewhere clearly, maybe we could read that into this passage. But there is no passage in the Bible that speaks of it clearly. So there's certainly no reason to try to force this verse to say that as some people definitely do.

Now, you asked about Luke 21, which is, of course, about AD 70. It's about what happened when the Romans came. It says in verse 20, and we're going to get to the verse you asked about too, which is verse 35, but Jesus said to his disciples, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies," and this would be the Roman armies, which some of them did live to see, "then know that its desolation is near." That is, the desolation of Jerusalem is near when the Romans are coming. "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her." These are the days of vengeance and so forth, so on.

Then he talks about how disastrous that will be. In verse 35, the verse you asked about, he says, "For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth." Now, you said, "Well, what about the whole earth? If this is the fall of Jerusalem, how would that be?" Well, the earth, the word "earth" in both the Old and the New Testament is the same as "land." In the Greek, it's the word "ge," G-E, which means earth or land, depending on which context it's found in. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word is "eretz," which also means earth or land. In the Old Testament, if you see the word "earth," it's "eretz." If you see the word "land," it's "eretz." In the New Testament, if you see the word "earth," it's "ge." If you see the word "land," it's also "ge."

So the same word in Hebrew or Greek means earth or land and is translated both ways depending on context. Obviously, the translators who translate this "it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth," they probably are dispensational translators as so many of them are of the modern translations. They're seeing this as the end of the world, something for the whole world to experience.

But of course, Jesus has told his disciples that this is going to come in their generation and it's going to involve Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. It's much more reasonable to see the word "earth" or "ge" as meaning "land" here. And of course, in the Bible, the land, at least when it's not otherwise designated by some name, the land is simply a term used for Israel very commonly. The word "the land" is used in the prophets and elsewhere among the Jews. "The land," if there's no other indicator of what land you're talking about, it's always referring to the land of Israel, unless it's contrasting it with the sea. Even then, it could refer to Israel because sometimes the Gentiles are called "the sea." But the point here is I think the better way to translate it in the context, fitting what's being said in the context, is it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole land. That is, the land of Israel. And that was certainly true. There was a three-and-a-half-year war that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but the war covered the whole land for three and a half years, beginning in AD 66 and predicted and fulfilled.

Alan: Awesome. Thank you very much.

Steve Gregg: All right, Alan. Thanks for your call. Good talking to you. All right, we've had some lines open up. Some of the people who were on the line on hold didn't stay. I guess they had to go, which means that's opportunity for you. If you want to be on the program, we have some lines open. The number to call is 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Don calling from Rising Sun, Indiana. Hi Don, welcome.

Don: Hi, thank you for taking my call. My question is about how often should we partake of the Lord's Supper?

Steve Gregg: Well, you know, that's an interesting thing. I think a case could be made that the early Christians partook of the Lord's Supper every time they gathered officially as a body for church. Eventually, like in the second century and so, that was usually on Sunday. In the early days of the church, like in Acts chapter 2, it seems like they got together every day. They continued daily in the Apostles' teaching and breaking bread and prayer and fellowship.

Breaking of bread could just mean eating meals, but then that's when they took Communion: at a meal. We know that they didn't take Communion the way it's popularly done in any of the main churches I've been to where they take a few minutes out of the ordinary service and they pass around a little bit of grape juice or wine and a little tiny bit of bread or a cracker, and they say a few words over it and then that's done.

In the early church, when they took Communion, it was part of a fellowship meal. We know that's true not only from what the Church Fathers said, but even some things the New Testament says. The fellowship meal was often called the Agape feast. In the Book of Jude, Jude mentions the Agape feasts that they had. He said these false teachers have crept in and are invading your Agape feasts. In the early Church Fathers, they often spoke of the Agape or the Agape feast as a major part of their Christian fellowship.

Now, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for abusing the occasion when they took the Lord's Supper. He said that some of the people were taking way too much food, so there wasn't enough for others who went home hungry. Some were taking way too much wine and going home drunk. Now, what this means is, of course, there was a lot of wine and food at the table and people took as much as they wanted. The inconsiderate ones took more than their share of the food, so some went away hungry. Obviously, they came to the table expecting to eat and not go away hungry.

It's very clear that the early church took Communion at an actual meal and they usually called it the Agape feast. Now, how often did they do that? It seems they did it as often as they wanted to. In the early days, they seemed to want to do it about every time they got together. We don't know if they sometimes got together without it. Again, they tended to eat together and sit under teaching daily, so it wasn't like once a week or anything like that.

Now, when that was during the revival of Pentecost and shortly afterward, as people settled back into their routines, went back to their own countries from Jerusalem, and got back into their jobs and family life and stuff, I'm assuming it wasn't quite as convenient or possible to meet every day with the whole church. Many people often have other responsibilities. So they started meeting apparently less frequently. We don't have any exact information. We do know of a couple of times, or actually one time in the Book of Acts, when the people gathered on the first day of the week, which was Sunday, although it doesn't say that was a weekly gathering. Paul was passing through town and they held a meeting on a Sunday night and they broke bread there. So they must have had a Communion meal.

But we don't know if they did it every Sunday or if they did it that Sunday particularly because Paul was passing through and we're told he's leaving the next day, so they held a meeting. We don't have any evidence in the New Testament that they met weekly on any given day. As I said, in the Book of Acts, they sometimes met much more frequently than weekly.

Because of this, traditions have developed. The Roman Catholic tradition of the Eucharist makes it rather the central feature of their Sunday Mass or their Sunday service. Some Catholics go to church more often, or at least go to Mass more often because it's possible in the Catholic Church you can go to the church and have Mass every morning. There are Catholics who do it every day. Those who don't do it every day, when they go on Sunday, they do it. There are Protestant churches that do it every Sunday also.

I was raised in a Protestant church that did it only once a month, the first Sunday of the month we did it. Then I became aware when I was older of some groups, Presbyterians traditionally, they take it four times a year. Now, obviously, there's a big difference between taking the Mass every morning or once a week on the one hand and taking it once a month or once every three months. We might say, well, who's doing this right and who's doing this wrong?

Well, they're all doing it within the realm of what the Bible permits because the Bible doesn't tell us how often to do it. The only thing Jesus said about it was that as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, do it in remembrance of me. So he didn't say how often they would do it. He just whenever you do, as often as you do it, do it to remember me.

Now, even that is ambiguous because when he says this bread and this cup, there is a very real possibility he meant the Passover, because he was with his disciples at a Passover meal. And the cup and the bread was the Passover cup and the Passover bread, part of the ritual, which they did once a year. So the disciples could, I'm not saying they did, but from what Jesus said they could reasonably have said, "Okay, every year when we take Passover, instead of commemorating the Exodus, we'll commemorate Jesus' death and resurrection and what he did for us, his blood and his body."

And that would have been a very reasonable observance of what he said to do. He didn't state any frequency, and maybe from his silence on it, it would have been reasonable to assume they were to do it once a year. But very clearly in the Book of Acts, they did it more often than that, and also in the early church from what the Church Fathers tell us.

So it seems like there's no particular frequency with which we're required to do it. It is done to remember Christ's body and his blood, and a lot of churches, even Protestant churches, do like to do it once a week. That's probably a decent thing to do. There's just no instructions about that in the Bible. Which means that I do it whenever I want to do it, and no more and no less. If I had instructions from the Bible or from God about how often to do it, I would do it however often it said. But since we have no instructions, I would just say whenever Christians get together and want to do that, they can and should. That'd be the only biblical way to answer your question. All right?

Don: Okay, thank you.

Steve Gregg: All right, Don. God bless. All right, we're going to talk to David in Atlanta, Georgia. David, welcome.

David: Hey, Steve. How are you, sir? Awesome. Well, first of all, I wanted to say thanks for your ministry over the years and all of your teaching for the body of Christ. It's a super big blessing and we're grateful for you. So I have a few topics, but I'm not sure where to start. I think there's a few that you'll be interested in. They're a little bit of bold claims, but I hope that you'll hear me out and not hang up on me.

First one probably to start with is the 70th week. I think that I have crunched the calendar math on the 70th week and found that it works. Specifically, it's a different time period than what has been thought, so we could run through that. It ends up having some implications for Revelation, including the two witnesses and some of the more challenging visions. So we could also start there. I'm also interested in the 1290 and 1335, which I know from your teaching, you said it's disappointing whenever you get to the end of Daniel and read those numbers and sort of feel left hanging. So I'm excited to be able to talk about those numbers as well because they are factored into the 70th week.

Steve Gregg: Okay, listen, I'm going to have a break coming up. Why don't we talk about the 70th week now, and I'll hold you over the break and we'll talk about those other numbers after the break. We have about two or three minutes, so I know it can be involved. Give me the CliffsNotes.

David: Yeah, so the CliffsNotes is it's a 70-year period. It's not a seven-year period. As you know, the Scripture doesn't require that it be a seven-year period in the first place. It's a 70-year period centered on the crucifixion, which is what Daniel says. There's a few things that are mentioned that construct that, and the first is really that it's centered on the crucifixion.

It's a 70-year period, not because the Scripture says so, but because we do the same thing with that one that we do with the 69. As you know, there's a number of sort of theories around which date to use for the start of the 69, but I'm a fan of, because it works and it works in this larger framework of the 70th, that you take the later date and it goes all the way to Palm Sunday. But we know that seven-year period, I think what you say in your teaching is right, that even if you didn't necessarily agree with any particular date, the seven-year block is what lands you at the time of Christ. So that's kind of the proof that it's seven years.

So what's interesting with the 70th, if it's 70 years centered on the crucifixion, a bunch of the key number markers align. And the way they align is not with what happened on that day historically, but rather on the Jewish calendar. So I'll give you the quick version. Of course, we know the crucifixion was Passover. So it's not so much that it was April 3rd, 33 AD, but it's Passover is the more significant Jewish date for that particular date.

If you go plus or minus 35 years and you do it based on the 360-day calendar that was the common ancient Near East, Babylonian, and Hebrew calendars, and backed up by Scripture by the way too, Genesis 7 and 8 have 150 days.

Steve Gregg: Hey, let me just say this. I understand your eagerness to give all the details, because when you study stuff out like that, you want everyone to follow every detail you did. We're going to have to have you jump to the end conclusion about this.

David: Okay. So the 1260 days is basically the numbers are times 10. So instead of a seven-year basis, those numbers are on a 70-year basis, which means you basically can multiply Daniel's numbers times 10. The 1260, which would be the end of the 70-year period, lands on a date called Hoshana Rabbah on the Jewish calendar, which is a day of judgment. The 1290 date lands on Tisha B'Av, which you probably know is the day of the temple burning, the first temple burning and the second temple burning, 9th of Av. And then the 1335 number lands on Heshvan 17, which is Noah's flood. And as you know, Daniel talks about the end will come like a flood. Revelation has the dragon spewing a flood. There's multiple markers.

Steve Gregg: Okay, hang on here. I know you're obviously eager to give all these details, but as you can see, we need to take our break now. I'm not going to dispute you because I'm not sure I fully understand all the things you're pointing out, so I'm not going to dispute you. You've just had a chance to share them. I will say this: I have a difficulty with the suggestion that the 70th week means a 70-year period simply because the word "week" in Hebrew means "seven." These are 77s altogether, and 69 of them transpire before Jesus comes, and then there's one more seven left. So I'm not sure how we'd jump from a seven to a 70 at that point.

However, I can't argue the point. I'm not going to because we need to take a break. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. We have another half hour coming up, so don't go away. Our website again, thenarrowpath.com. I'll be back in about 30 seconds and we'll take the second question from David.

Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we have another half hour live taking your calls. If you'd like to be on the program with your questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, or if you disagree with the host about something and want to bring that up for conversation, we welcome it. The number to call is 844-484-5737. We have a few lines open so you can get through if you call right now. 844-484-5737.

Now, before the break, David from Atlanta, Georgia, had called. He had two questions and we were interrupted by the break, which is a hard break every day. And so we have a second question now. We took the first one, and before we get into this, David, I'll just give some background for the people who don't know what you're talking about. At the end of Daniel, there are two periods of time mentioned and it is not made very specifically clear what they represent. There's a period of time from the abomination of desolation forward that is said to be 1290 days. And then the next verse says, "Blessed is he who endures to the 1335th day." Now, this is two periods of time. One is 45 days longer than the other. The earliest date is 1290 days after the abomination and the other one is 45 days later, 1335. And so David has called to clarify what that is.

Now, before I put you on, Dave, I just want to say this. You've done a lot of study, which I appreciate, and you've got strong convictions about this. But you hope you appreciate we're on the radio here and there's nothing more that makes people's eyes glaze over on the radio than hearing a whole bunch of numbers, a whole bunch of mathematics, and not even knowing where to put it in. This is the kind of thing that if it's not something that can be summarized rather clearly and quickly and you want me to know the information, you're welcome to write to me and give me the detailed analysis if you want to. I don't object to that. But as far as radio time, we've got my lines full at this point. And so we can't take a lot of time, especially with a bunch of mathematics. But a little math, if it's not too extended and not too difficult, certainly we can tolerate. So go for it. Go ahead.

David: Okay. Yes, I do have these written up, so I have actually emailed you. I figured you probably get a lot of emails, so you haven't seen it, but I do have a website. It's called, if I can mention it here, I don't want to mention it if I'm not supposed to, but it's just only dedicated to these two documents. Okay, so it's JesusInTheSevens.com. And I just created the site. I'm a software guy, so it's easy to create a website for me, so I just put it up there to make the documents available. So I have a document on Daniel and I have one on Revelation.

Steve Gregg: Let me ask you this. Are you the one who wrote to me and mentioned that the 1290 years is like when something to do with the Romans breaking through the gates or something like that, and then the 1335 years has to do with the leniency that Titus showed to the Jews who survived?

David: No. No, mine would be the... So to keep the math short, it's a 70-year period centered on the crucifixion. The start date ends up just computed just taking the crucifixion as the center point, which is what Daniel says, which by the way, maybe the other quick point if you want to do non-math, we could talk about the fact that the abomination that causes desolation is the crucifixion. And that's what makes it the center point of Daniel's counting.

So 35 years prior to that, exactly to the day, is Shemini Atzeret, which is the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles, which is the incarnation. And it's right in the window that scholars, you know, agree is the incarnation. Forward 35 years is a day of judgment. The 1290 is Tisha B'Av, destruction of the temple, first temple burning and the second temple burning. And the 1335, again on the Jewish calendar, is the day of the flood, Noah's flood.

Steve Gregg: But wait, if the temple is destroyed after 1290 days, how is there a blessing that comes on those 45 days later on the day that you said?

David: Reaching the end of the Old Covenant. So it's all about reaching the end of the Old Covenant. So the 70th week is about... The first half is Jesus's life, the work of the cross and the unfolding work of the cross, which is twofold: the birth of the New Covenant people and the destruction of the Old Covenant in its utter desolation. That's when Daniel says wars till the end, mostly the preterist vibe of that. Quite a short way to answer that.

Steve Gregg: Well, we'll leave those suggestions on the table for our listeners to contemplate if they're interested. Thank you for your call. I have to say for radio fare, a lot of numbers really goes over the heads of people, including me sometimes, although sometimes I'm more familiar with the passages you're talking about. Thank you. Let's see, we're going to talk next to Tyler in Dallas, Texas. Hi. Of course, it could be the other way around, could be Dallas in Tyler, Texas. This is Tyler in Dallas, Texas. How you doing? Hope you're there. I've got your phone activated. Do you have your cell phone silenced? Muted? Okay, I've got to move along. Don't really want to. Tell you what, yeah, call back if you can get your phone working. All right, we're going to talk next to Kimberly in Clearlake, California next. Hi, Kimberly. Welcome.

Kimberly: Hi, I have a question. When the Lord sends down destruction to other nations, the United States is not mentioned. Is there a reason why?

Steve Gregg: Well, because the United States didn't exist at that time. You see, there are no modern nations mentioned in the Bible. The Bible... Yeah, you see the only nation that you read about the destruction of it... Well, I take that back, I want to take that back a little bit here. I think the fall of the Roman Empire, which is not a modern nation, is possibly mentioned in Revelation, though I personally don't see it that way.

I think the only nation that really its destruction is mentioned in the New Testament is the nation of Israel, which was destroyed in AD 70. Now, in the Old Testament, there's lots of prophecies about destruction of lots of nations, but no modern ones. You've got the destruction of Babylon and Assyria and Edom and the Philistines and the Moabites and the Ammonites. Most of those don't exist anymore. And the ones that do already were judged back in Old Testament times. So it's not talking about, for example, it talks about Egypt. It's not really talking about modern Egypt, or it's not a modern destruction of modern Egypt. When it talks about Israel, it's not talking about modern Israel. Israel existed back then as an ancient nation and a very different kind of nation than the one that's there now. So the reason the United States is not mentioned in Bible prophecy is the Bible prophecy doesn't deal with the time period that the United States has been in existence.

Kimberly: I thought maybe it was because right now the United States is in turmoil with the fires, the flooding all through all across the United States. Maybe it was wiped off the map.

Steve Gregg: Well, you're not the first person to suggest that. I've definitely heard prophecy teachers make that claim. The main thing about those prophecy teachers, how they differ from myself, is that they believe one of the main themes of the Bible prophecies is what we would call the End Times. That is to say, they think that the time just before Christ returns, maybe the seven years before or maybe a slightly longer or shorter time before Jesus comes back, that that time is spoken of by many prophets in the Bible. And so they tend to read those prophets as if those prophets were talking about the End Times.

Now, none of those prophets, in my opinion, I've taught through the prophets verse by verse 20 times or more in my ministry, I don't know of any prophets that talk about the End Times, honestly. Some of them use the term "the last days," and this leads people to think that way. But the New Testament writers said that they were living in the last days. In fact, all of them pretty much did.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter said what's going on here is what Joel said, that in the last days, God would pour out his Spirit and that's what's happening right now. So he was saying we're in the last days. Peter also said in 1 Peter chapter 1 that Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world but was manifest in the last days for you, meaning at his first coming, in the last days of the Jewish temple system, of the Old Testament system.

You see, every Jew for 1400 years up to and including Jesus' time had worshipped God through a system that God established through Moses in the temple and through sacrifices and stuff. That was all they knew. But the prophets did say that that system would be replaced by a New Covenant. That is, the temple covenant would be replaced with the covenant that the Messiah would bring.

And of course, Jesus did bring that when he came. He said to his disciples, "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood." And Paul said that he was a minister of the New Covenant and so forth. So it's very clear that the Old Testament did say that this covenant made at Sinai, which dominated the whole experience and thinking of the Jewish nation from its founding until AD 70 really when it was destroyed, that was going to be replaced. That's what Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

And of course, Jesus did come bring the New Covenant. So when Jesus came, it was the last days of the first covenant system, of the Jewish system, because one generation after Jesus came, the temple was destroyed permanently. It's been down for 2,000 years and it's never been rebuilt since. So Jesus and the apostles understood that they were living in the last days of their times.

John actually said in 1 John chapter 2, he said, "Little children, it is the last hour." And he said, "And as you've heard that Antichrist shall come, already there are many antichrists, so you know it is the last hour." James rebuked the rich of his own day saying, "You have laid up treasures for yourselves in the last days." In Hebrews chapter 1, it begins by saying, "God, who at sundry times and diverse manners spoke in times past to our fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son." And when Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 outlines some of the experiences of the Israelites in the wilderness when they came out of Egypt, he said, "These things were a type for us upon whom the ends of the ages have come."

So all the New Testament writers identified their own time as the End Times and the ends of the ages and the final hour, because the Jewish system that had existed for many, many centuries before their time and through their entire lifetimes was going down soon. It was going to be destroyed because of the New Covenant had come.

So this is how they spoke. So when you read in the Old Testament about the last days or the latter days, sometimes people think, "Oh, that's the end of the world when Jesus is coming back." No, that's not the way the writers of the New Testament saw it. They saw it differently than that, and I trust that they were correct. So I'm not like the people who's always reading the Old Testament and saying, "Oh, this is going to happen in the End Times." In almost every case, the prophets, I think in every case, the prophets when they're talking that way are talking about ancient nations that fell usually centuries before Jesus was born. Most of the fulfillment happened before Jesus even came.

And Jesus did speak of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as if it's going to pretty much seal up and fulfill all the remaining prophecies. Because he said, I read this verse a few minutes ago, Luke 21:20, Jesus told his disciples, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies," that's Roman armies, "then let know that its desolation is near." Then he said, "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountain, let those who are in the midst of it depart, let not those who are in the country go back into her, for these are the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

Now, that's interesting. Jesus said, "Here's the Romans coming to destroy Jerusalem. These are the days of vengeance so that everything that was written," I presume he means Old Testament writings, prophecies and so forth, "so that everything that is written might be fulfilled." So he's talking about the Old Testament prophets and he seemed to say the parts of it that hadn't been fulfilled yet, although hundreds of years before Christ most of those prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled, but the parts that had not had to be fulfilled too, and the destruction of Jerusalem Jesus said would be so that those things could be fulfilled.

Now, in Acts chapter 3, Peter is preaching, this is only his second sermon that we know of, and he said in Acts 3:24, he said to the Jews, "Yes, and all the prophets," meaning the Old Testament prophets, "from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days." Not some days 2,000 years later than that: these days, the days he was living in. Peter said that all the prophets in the Old Testament spoke of the days they were living in, which was, in fact, the last days of the Jewish order.

So in other words, there's no indication in the Bible that God has made any prophetic predictions about modern times at all. And why would he? Jesus said to his disciples, "It's not for you to know the times and the seasons that the Father has put in his own authority." Jesus said that to them just before he ascended, almost like the last thing he said before he ascended. "Don't be asking about that stuff. Don't be worried about that stuff. It's not for you to know." And so obviously, if it's not ours to know what God has coming up next or at the end, those are the things that God has put in his own authority.

Jesus said you won't know when it's going to happen. He says it's like a thief coming. He says watch all the time, be ready all the time because at a time that you don't think, he says your master will come. So there's no encouragement in the Bible to be looking for signs of the End Times because God has not given us any. There really aren't prophecies about the End Times as near as I can tell. I'd like for someone to find some for me if they think I'm wrong, because I'd be willing to hear what they have to point out.

But sounds to me the Bible says that the end and fulfillment of the prophecies of destruction apart from those ones that actually occur at the moment Jesus comes back. See, I believe there is a future coming of Jesus. And when he does, the elements will melt with a fervent heat, and the earth and its works will burn up, and there'll be new heavens, new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. I believe that's going to happen when Jesus comes back. But as far as individual nations being destroyed and things like that, there are no New Testament predictions of them that have not been fulfilled. There are no, as far as I know, Old Testament predictions of them that weren't fulfilled in ancient times. And so that's why I would never agree with those people who seem to think that the lack of mention of America is because America's destroyed before Jesus comes back. I don't think that's necessary to conclude.

Kimberly: Oh, that helps a lot. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Steve Gregg: Okay, Kimberly. God bless you. Tyler from Dallas, Texas, who we didn't connect with when we tried before, is back. Hi Tyler, welcome.

Tyler: Hey Steve, can you hear me now? Okay, great. Yeah, I was reading the other night, I was reading Luke 4:5-7. And I was just wondering, when Satan tells Jesus that he was given all authority and power to give to him, is he just lying there or was there actually a point in time where he had more authority than Jesus to give him?

Steve Gregg: Well, Jesus had not claimed his authority yet. Remember, it's after he came out of the tomb in Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me now." Now, that was due to his having died and risen again and his immediate coming to sit on the throne in heaven at his ascension. What he's saying is, "You've been waiting for the Messiah to come and take over, defeat the enemy and be the ruler, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Okay, I've died, I've risen from the again again. I'm going to go up and fulfill Psalm 110 which says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.' That's where I'm about to go up there and that'll be true."

So all the authority in heaven and earth actually has been given to me now. But I'm not saying he didn't have authority before that. But obviously his statement in Matthew 28:18 suggests some new situation since he died and rose again. He was by nature, of course, God in the flesh, but he had laid aside his authority. I mean, he hadn't taken it in hand. It says in Daniel 7:13 that he saw the Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days, which Jesus did, of course, when he ascended, and he was given a throne and dominion and authority. That's what happened when Jesus ascended to heaven. He was given that kingdom and dominion authority and now, of course, he reigns and is the rightful authority.

Before that, God had only really claimed part of the earth, and namely Israel, to be his special people. It's not that he didn't care about anyone else, but he planned on in his overall plan for history on raising up through Israel a deliverer, the Messiah, who then would go out and spread his authority and his message and his salvation to all the nations of the world, just like he'd promised Abraham. He told Abraham, "Every nation in the world will be blessed through your seed," and by that he meant through Jesus. So over the past 2,000 years every nation in the world has in fact heard of Christ, in measure has received Christ and is receiving the blessing of Abraham's seed, and it's continuing to expand.

So that's how I see it. Now, before Jesus came and even before he died and rose again, only Israel really was an exception to the general fact that Satan ruled the nations of the world. And that's only because God didn't interfere with him doing it. And some say he had the right to because when Adam and Eve sinned, somehow their rights were transferred to Satan. Some of that's not stated clearly in the Bible, but that is one scenario that is possible. But Jesus came and took it back.

So at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, Satan could be seen as no doubt still having that kind of authority over the nations. And it says that he took him up on a high place and he showed him all the nations of the earth, or all the kingdoms of the earth, in a moment of time. It says in Luke 4:5. And that's what you're actually asking. Could he...? And he offered them to Jesus if Jesus would bow down and worship him. You're saying could he? Jesus didn't say, "Oh, you can't fool me, you can't give me those, they aren't yours." He just said, "Hey, I'm not interested on those terms. Get behind me. I'm not going to bow down to you."

But it's interesting he didn't say, "I can't take that offer seriously, you know, you don't have any power to do that, Satan." So I have to think that Jesus' failure to challenge that speaks volumes. I think that the nations were largely or maybe entirely, apart from Israel, in the care of Satan because God had not reached out to them yet.

But in 1 John, he says the whole world lies in the lap of the wicked one, meaning Satan. That's at the end of 1 John in 1 John chapter 5. He says, "We know that we are of God and the whole world lies in the wicked one." So until the Gospel goes out to the whole world and people embrace Christ as King and Lord, they're still kind of by default following their habits of just doing what Satan leads them to do because they don't know otherwise. That by the way is 1 John 5:19. So anyway, I think Satan's offer was a bona fide offer. At least Jesus didn't look at it as if it was not a possible thing for Satan to do.

All right, maybe we have time for one more. And looks like Roderick from Everett, Washington's been there the longest. Hi, Roderick. Welcome. Roderick, are you there? He's gone. Let's talk to Brad from Vancouver, BC. Hi Brad, welcome.

Brad: Hi Steve. Thanks for what you do. I'll make this quick. I'm just looking at the two passages on choosing elders. And I've heard someone say that it's not really like choosing an elder for office as a position. It's more like these are qualifications to look for in a mentor almost, like the way we see it nowadays would be like looking for a mentor, not qualifications for an office or a position, elected or voted on, right? Just wondering your take on it.

Steve Gregg: Well, there could be an element of both. It's obvious that elders are told by Peter and by Paul to be examples to the sheep. That is, they have to be men who could be mentors to younger Christians. And it's interesting that the qualifications God gives that Paul gives in those two places, which is 1 Timothy 3 and Titus chapter 1, he doesn't mention anything about them that makes them exceptional Christians. They're just good Christians. They're just mature, consistent Christians. I guess maybe that's more exceptional than it should be, but every Christian should be that, but not everyone is. And so he says the elders have to be people who the others can imitate. As Paul himself said about them, though he was not an elder in a church, in 1 Corinthians 11 he says in verse 1, "Be imitators of me as I am of Christ." That's what people need. People need mentors who are following Christ so well, like all Christians should, that they can kind of see how it's done.

Now, was there an office of an elder? I realize the King James says in 1 Timothy 3:1, "This is a faithful saying, if a man desires the office of a bishop or overseer." And by the way, the word bishop and elder are used interchangeably throughout the New Testament. He talks about the office in the King James. The New King James says "the position of an overseer," but actually the word "position," which is in King James translated "office," is not there: it doesn't correspond with any word in the Greek. It just means if anyone desires eldership or bishopric, if anyone desires to be an overseer. It doesn't say the word "office" is not really there. The King James, I think, was influenced by the Church of England at the time that had a certain kind of church leadership. That's why they used the word bishop instead of overseer, which is the Greek word's meaning.

Now, I think what he's saying is, and my idea is that in every church there's supposed to be men who can teach others and whose lives are exemplary, and that the apostle could point out to the younger believers and say, "These are the guys we endorse. These are the guys that we think should be your mentors, should be your teachers, and so forth." But I don't think it had the political status that it has come to have in the church in later years so that the elder's the boss or the eldership's like a board of directors. I don't think that the political aspects of the office were ever part of it, and Jesus said it never should be. He said you should never be like the rulers of the Gentiles who exercise authority over them. Rather, these are the people you can trust. In a church where people might show up with bad doctrine, these are the ones whose doctrine you should follow, and I think that just recognizing them as such is what was in mind. I'm sorry, out of time. I'll be back tomorrow taking your calls again. I'm Steve Gregg and this has been The Narrow Path. Check out our website thenarrowpath.com.