The Narrow Path

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour each weekday afternoon to welcome your calls. If you want to be on the program, you have questions about the Bible, about the Christian faith you'd like to ask, or you see things differently from the way the host does and want to say so and why, feel free to give me a call.

The number is 844-484-5737. Don't get all those eights and fours mixed up. It's 844-484-5737. And we're ready to take your calls. Tomorrow morning is the third Saturday of the month, which is the time we usually have a men's Bible study in Temecula at 8:00 in the morning. If you're a man and you're in the area and you want to come, you can join us tomorrow morning, 8:00 in Temecula.

The location is listed for you at our website, thenarrowpath.com, under the tab that says announcements. And you'll also find there, predictably, all the places I'll be speaking that you're welcome to join us at in the future. So you might check it out once in a while to see if I'm in your area, if you're interested. Alright, we're going to go to the phones and talk to Damian in Fort Worth, Texas first of all. Damian, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Damian: Hi Steve, thank you for your ministry. I just have two unrelated questions. The first, if you could comment on a statement I heard Jack Hibbs say that Palestine was named because of the Romans having named it Philistia after they conquered Israel as a slight to the Jews? I was wondering if that was the case.

And then also if you could comment on at the end of John's Gospel where the disciples are having breakfast with Jesus on the beach, what do you think Peter's understanding of the coming of the Lord was when he asked him if John would remain alive at his coming?

Steve Gregg: Alright, as far as the Jack Hibbs claim that Palestine was so named after the word Philistine, the Romans started calling it that after 135 AD after the Bar Kokhba rebellion. And it was called that for centuries afterwards. That is true. Now, I'm not sure what the point is he's trying to make. The truth is that it was not Israel anymore. There was no Israel, no nation of Israel.

The Jews had been dispersed throughout the world and their capital had been burned to the ground and their religion was ended because the temple was destroyed. So it didn't really have any connections to Israel anymore. So yeah, perhaps it was to spite the Jews that the Romans called it Palestina. But I mean, it's a very small insult compared to the insult of destroying their whole nation and their religion and so forth.

So it was a consequence of the judgment of God on Israel according to Jesus that the Romans came and did what they did. And that was one of the indignities that they suffered; their land was no longer named after them, but after people who had been their enemies in previous centuries. The Philistines themselves, I don't think were there anymore. Philistines, I don't know when they became extinct, but they did in pre-Christian times. So I'm not sure why they chose that except that that had been the land that the Philistines had lived in before they were defeated by Israel some centuries earlier.

Anyway, as far as John 21 when Jesus told Peter what would happen to him in his later life, Peter didn't find it pleasant, so he asked what about John? What about him? What's going to happen to him? And Jesus said, "If it is my will that he remains until I come, what is that to you? You follow me." And we're told that the rumor went around in the early church based on that statement that John would be alive when Jesus comes back.

Now you ask, what would the coming of the Lord mean to Peter when Jesus said that? I really don't know what the disciples understood at that point about the coming of the Lord. It seems clear that after Jesus rose from the dead, first of all, that took them by surprise even though he had told them he would rise from the dead. They were still surprised and unbelieving when they first heard of it.

And then, of course, it would seem that they were not at all expecting him to ascend into heaven and disappear for 2,000 years. I believe both his resurrection and his ascension caught them by surprise. In fact, the resurrection he had predicted, so that shouldn't have caught them by surprise, but his ascension he had never really made any clear predictions about. So they can be forgiven for not knowing that he's going to ascend into heaven, as he did apparently took them by surprise in Acts chapter 1 where this happens.

Now, because Peter probably did not know that Jesus was going to go away and ascend into heaven at the time that Jesus was speaking to him, the disciples, including Peter, probably didn't have a real grasp on what we mean by the second coming of Christ. His second coming was only occasioned by the fact that after he came the first time, he went away. And so when he returns, it'll be a second coming. But they didn't know he was going away, and therefore they probably didn't have a concept as we do now in retrospect that there'd be a second coming.

But his coming could have meant any number of things in their minds. Remember when he told them the temple would be destroyed and not one stone would be left standing on another in Matthew 24. In verse 3 of that chapter, the disciples, which included Peter and James and John and Andrew, they asked him, "When will these things be? That is when will the temple be destroyed? And what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?"

Now what did they mean by his coming? Did they just mean that the temple being destroyed was an act of judgment and so they're using the Jewish idiom of referring to an act of judgment from God as his coming? Or did they believe that the temple would be destroyed and that would not only end the temple but it would end the world? That that would be the end of the present world and the coming of the new heavens and the earth? I don't know. We're not given any real information about how they understood this.

And when Jesus said, "If I want John to remain until I come, what is that to you?" I don't really know that Peter had a clear understanding of what it means till Jesus comes. Now, John's Gospel is written much later, after Jesus ascended and after the church had the expectation of the second coming. And so in writing the Gospel, the intention is to point out that the church had subsequently after Jesus left wrongly concluded that John would live until Jesus came back.

And probably as John was by this time getting old, people were thinking Jesus has to come soon now. By the time the Gospel of John was written, Jesus had been gone and the second coming was expected by them just as it is by us to this day. So they would have the same kind of expectation that Jesus is going to come back that we have. But they thought the timing would suggest if he said that John wouldn't die before it happened and John was now an old man, they would probably see this as a sign of the near coming of Christ, just like Christians throughout history have mistakenly seen all kinds of things going on as signs of the near coming of Christ, as a great number of Christians do now.

Now, of course, the point being, when Jesus spoke, he didn't claim that John would stay alive until his coming. He just said to Peter, and the writer in John chapter 21 explains this, he didn't say John will not die, he said, "If it is my will that he remains until I come, what is that to you?" In other words, Jesus spoke it as a hypothetical and people had wanted to claim that as a promise.

And that isn't something that Jesus was making. He wasn't making that promise. But by the time that was recorded in John 21, I think the idea of Jesus coming was the same in the mind of the church as it is in the church today. But when Jesus spoke it to Peter, Peter may well have scratched his head a bit not knowing exactly how to understand it. I appreciate your call. George in Scottsdale, Arizona, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

George: Thank you Steve. I've been reading about one of the early disputes between Catholics and Orthodox being the Spirit proceeding from either just the Father or the Father and the Son. And I had always looked at proceed meaning sent, but I get the feeling in what I'm reading now at any rate that it's generated, and it may be eternally generated which to me is an oxymoron. But generated, I thought that the Spirit was eternal, not generated like Jesus prior to his being begotten. You know, they were always there. Am I a heretic for thinking that they are co-eternal, that nobody generated anybody?

Steve Gregg: Well, first of all, I don't think anyone should call you a heretic just because you don't agree with either the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox view. I knew that they differ over the matter of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from just the Father or from the Father and the Son, and that this is a big, big point of difference for them, which I can't understand why it would be.

But I had always thought that they meant proceeded in the sense of comes to us. It's the Father who gives us the Spirit or it's the Father and Jesus who give us the Spirit. But you're probably right because it sounds like you've looked into it. I haven't looked into their theology that deep. So I mean, if they're saying well the Holy Spirit exists as something eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son or from the Father alone, how could that be?

The idea of an eternal sonship of Jesus has been controversial in some circumstances too. If something is generated from something else, if a child is born from a father or if something is produced or generated or proceeding from something, it seems like the thing that they're proceeding from must have been there first. And that's a temporal term. That means that the thing that's proceeding from that which was first isn't first, it's second. It's not eternal.

Now, I think one way that the classic idea of eternal procession of the Son from the Father or of the Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son is thinking of, I know the Eastern Orthodox Church has sometimes explained the Trinity in a way that I find interesting and perhaps helpful. I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but obviously Christians are often grasping for analogies for the Trinity.

And one that has come from Eastern Fathers is that God is like the sun in our solar system, the sun. And that the light of the sun is like Jesus, and the heat of the sun is like the Spirit. Now, in a sense, the heat and the light of the sun are part of the sun. I mean, we wouldn't really distinguish them. I'd say the sun is really warm today or the sun is very bright today, when we're really just talking about the heat or the light.

And they would say that the Holy Spirit is like the heat or the energy from the sun and Jesus is like the light from the sun. Now, as long as the sun has existed, heat and light have been part of it. I mean, the sun didn't come into existence moments before its light and heat did. It's part of the nature of the sun that it has light and heat. And therefore the heat and the light from the sun are not really something different than the sun and haven't come along later than the sun. They're simply an integral part of it.

Now, again, I don't know if that's a good analogy or not. It's a very ancient one and I find it helpful to think of it that way.

George: It does make sense to me.

Steve Gregg: It does make sense to you that the sun's light and heat have always been coming from the sun as long as the sun has been there?

George: Yes, yes. Just what you just said, right.

Steve Gregg: Okay. Well, lots of explanations people give the Trinity have not made sense to me. That one actually does make sense to me because I can't think of the sun existing without light or heat. It's the very nature of the sun to be a ball of fire. And fire does not exist without heat and light. So if that doesn't work for you, then something else might, but that's in my mind, I find that a helpful analogy.

George: It is. Now is it fair to say that the Son and the Spirit are not subordinate but they are deferent? That they defer to the Father, but they are not subordinate. They simply choose to do as the Father directs?

Steve Gregg: Well, here's the problem with the Trinity and the nature of the persons or elements of the Trinity or whatever. The Bible doesn't tell us those things. People want to tell us those things because they want to have a fully well-packaged theological understanding of things. But I don't think the Bible has enough definitive statements to give us a completely packaged understanding.

I think there's things that we don't know and which wouldn't make us better Christians if we did know. But I think the idea is that the Son and the Spirit are voluntarily subordinate to the Father. I think that's how many understand it. I think that's how it's traditionally understood.

George: Okay, good. Thank you very much, I always appreciate your help. God bless.

Steve Gregg: You too, George. Thanks for your call. Good talking to you. Ken in Winters, California, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Ken: Hi Steve, my question is what do you believe the Bible is speaking of when it says the restrainer will be removed?

Steve Gregg: Well, I was raised with one opinion about it and I just assumed it was the only possible opinion. And then I heard that there was another opinion that had prevailed for hundreds of years before mine did. And it actually made more sense to me, but I still don't know with certainty for the simple reason that Paul deliberately avoids being crystal clear. In fact, he uses vague language apparently on purpose. In fact, whatever we take to be the meaning of it, our explanation should have something that explains why Paul didn't say it more clearly.

Because what he said, he's talking about the man of sin is going to come. And he says in verse 5, "Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?" Now, by the way, he's saying I'm not going to lay it out in all the details now in this printed page, in this letter, as I did when I was with you. Which means they knew more about this than he writes here. They had heard about this before from him in person.

We didn't. We didn't hear him speak in person, which means his vagueness is going to be more problematic for us than apparently it would have been for them because he had talked to them about it in person. Then he says in verse 6, "And now you know what is restraining," meaning what is restraining the man of lawlessness from coming to power, "that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming."

So the lawless one is the one that's also called the man of sin in some manuscripts. And most popular teachers tell us that the lawless one here is a reference to the Antichrist. In other words, they make this an eschatological teaching that there will be a man, a man of lawlessness, who will be the Antichrist. They also identify him with the little horn of Daniel 7, and some identify him with the little horn of Daniel 8, and many interpret Daniel 11:36 and following to be about him too. And of course, many think that the beast in Revelation 13 is him.

Now let me just say this. The Bible nowhere calls the man of sin the Antichrist. The Bible nowhere calls the beast the Antichrist, and the Bible nowhere calls the little horns in Daniel the Antichrist. The term Antichrist is never used of an individual man in the Bible. The word Antichrist is found only in the epistles First and Second John. And they are not in eschatological descriptions and they do not appear to describe an individual.

John said in 1 John chapter 2, he said, "You have heard that Antichrist is coming and now there are many Antichrists," he says, "by which we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us." So he's talking about Antichrists who were in the church in his day but had left the church. And he said that's a signal that we're in the final hour. Now a verse or so later, he says, "Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? The same is Antichrist."

Okay, so whoever denies that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, is Antichrist. And he said there's many Antichrists and some of them had been in the church already and had left. So that's the only sense in which the word Antichrist is used in the Bible. It's not used of an individual in the end times. You'll never find it used that way. So we might certainly revisit the whole question of what we've been told about the Antichrist.

Now, one of the things we should revisit is whether 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 is using the man of lawlessness to refer to a future individual man of sin, Antichrist. Now Paul tells us that at some point the man of sin would sit in the temple of God saying that he is God. Okay, so the popular theology called dispensationalism teaches that in the end times, in the middle of a seven-year tribulation period, which will begin at the rapture of the church, this Antichrist will rise to power as a world dictator.

Now, does the Bible say that anywhere? It does not. The Bible does not ever mention a seven-year tribulation. It never mentions a rapture that would occur before the tribulation. It does mention the rapture, it just doesn't mention anything about it coming before the tribulation anywhere. And there's certainly nothing about a man called the Antichrist rising up at that time. That's all part of the dispensational system although it was also believed by many church fathers.

You can find in the writings of I think Tertullian, certainly in Irenaeus and Hippolytus, these church fathers in the second century, they already had this idea that there would be an Antichrist and that he would sit in the temple of God. Okay, well they obviously were getting the temple of God part from 2 Thessalonians 2. Now, from this it has become popular to believe that in the seven-year tribulation, the Antichrist will rise to power in the world and he will give the Jews permission to build their temple.

And in the middle of the seven-year tribulation, he will put an image of himself in the temple and that will mark the beginning of what they call the great tribulation for the next three and a half years, at the end of which Jesus will return and judge the world and set up the millennium. That's the dispensational view. Okay, well those people who see it that way always want to of course find out what it was that Paul says is hindering, what's restraining the man of sin from rising.

The dispensational answer you get most often is that it is the church or possibly slightly differently the Holy Spirit in the church at this present time that prevents the Antichrist from rising. And that's why they believe there should be a pre-tribulation rapture. That is, the church has to be taken out of the way before the man of sin can rise. Why? Because the church or the Holy Spirit in the church is hindering or restraining him from rising.

Now of all the possible views, this is the one that cannot be true for the simple reason that Paul just a few verses earlier said in verse 1: "Now brethren concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him," which would be the rapture. "We ask you not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled either by spirit or by word or by letter as if the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means for that day will not come."

Now what day will not come? Well the day he's mentioned, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him. Okay Jesus is going to come back and he's going to call the saints to him and that is the resurrection or the rapture. He says that day can't come unless the falling away comes first and the man of sin is revealed. So the rapture cannot occur until after the man of sin is revealed. That's what Paul says. I mean that's not the ambiguous part of the passage, that's the unambiguous part of the passage. That day will not come until after the man of sin is revealed.

Well then the presence of the church in the world cannot be the thing that prevents him from being revealed, can it? Because the church won't leave until he's revealed. The dispensationalist says no, the church has to leave first and then he can be revealed because the church is restraining him. Paul never says that's the case and it certainly doesn't agree, he'd be contradicting himself in the next three verses if that's what he meant.

Now some people have thought that what restrains the man of sin from rising is maybe just God, the will of God. I've heard people say it's the archangel Michael and they appeal to Daniel 12:1 about that. I've heard different things. Now all the people in question are thinking of the man of sin as a future Antichrist. And no matter which of these views you take, you still haven't explained why was Paul so cryptic about it? Why did he say, "You know what it is, I told you about this when I was with you, I'm not going to mention what it is now, but you know what I'm talking about here"?

Okay well why doesn't he just say it? He's pretty clear about his teachings on most things when he writes a letter. He must have some reason for being vague here. Why? Well, it's interesting that before there was dispensationalism, in the late medieval church and in the Reformation, there was a view that arose that the man of sin is the papacy. And that it arose as Daniel 7 predicted when the fourth kingdom Rome fell.

The papacy arose like the little horn in Daniel 7 to fill the vacuum of power in Europe and that whole part of the world by taking over that place. They believed that what was preventing the man of sin from rising was the Roman Empire itself and that the Roman Empire had to be taken out of the way before the man of sin could rise to fill that void. Now Paul did say the man of sin would sit in the temple of God and Paul uses that phrase two other times in First and Second Corinthians to mean the church.

The church is the temple of God and it's the only thing Paul ever called the temple of God. So if the man of sin is to rise in the temple of God, that'd be in the church. So the Reformers for example and some before them thought that this is referring to the rise of the papacy when the fall of Rome takes place. And that would be why Paul didn't mention it because he might get in trouble if he said in writing that he believed Rome had to fall.

Anyway, I'm out of time for this segment. We have another half hour coming. You're listening to The Narrow Path. Our website's thenarrowpath.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds. Thanks for joining us. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we are live for another half hour taking your calls. Our number is 844-484-5737. Our lines are full right now, so don't call right now, but call in a few minutes and you'll find lines do open up and we'll be glad to talk to you. We're going to talk next to Christopher calling from New Market, New Hampshire. Hi Christopher, welcome.

Christopher: Hey Steve, Shalom to you. I actually had a question that was about Luke chapter 22 verses 29 and 30. And I wanted to know if the disciples that were faithful with Jesus, besides Judas, are judging the 12 tribes of Israel. I'll take my answer off the air.

Steve Gregg: Oh okay. When Jesus told the disciples that they would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, it's true that Judas was among them. But he was speaking of them as a corporate entity of the 12, not as so many individuals because, of course, Jesus also predicted that one of them was going to betray him. And we know that Judas did do so and lost his place.

And in Acts chapter 1, the apostles chose another man named Matthias to be his replacement. Now some people think that Matthias wasn't really intended by God to be the replacement and that Paul was, or Saul. I'm not going to argue that point. I think there's reason to believe that the Book of Acts affirms Matthias as a legitimate disciple, legitimate replacement for Judas, and saw Paul as a part of a different group of apostles who were sent to the Gentiles.

The 12 were sent to the circumcision, Galatians 2 tells us. But Paul and his company were sent to the Gentiles. So I don't think Paul ever saw himself as a replacement for Judas or being one of the 12. But specifically says that the 12 had a unique mission at least initially to the Jews. And they headed up initially the Jerusalem Church until the church spread to many other places. But they still seemed to have lived in Jerusalem for a long time even after the church had spread, although eventually most of the apostles did travel and did go far away.

Thomas of course to India famously, some of them to Egypt, some of them other places to Asia Minor and so forth and they were martyred there. But for a very long time after Jesus' ascension, the 12 stayed in Jerusalem. Now it's true Judas was no longer part of the group. But that's like just saying, okay I'm going to choose this team, I'm going to choose SEAL Team Six to go on this mission and I'm going to give them special orders and special responsibilities.

Now I have to admit I don't know how many people are in SEAL Team Six, but let's just say there were 12 just to make it a parallel to this. But then as they're being dispatched, one of them catches COVID and dies. Okay so they replace him. It's still that team. The team is still the same team. And in the New Testament, the apostolic team, whether it included Judas or his replacement, was still the same team.

And things were said about them that weren't true of anybody else that wasn't on that team. In fact, the 12, just the expression the 12, is sometimes shorthand for the team, for that team. And for example, when Jesus appeared on the evening of the resurrection, the Bible says he appeared to the 12. Well, Judas was dead and had not been replaced yet, so he didn't appear to him.

And we're told in John, Thomas wasn't there either that time, but was there the next time Jesus appeared to the team eight days later. But the group he appeared to, though it only included 10, they were called the 12. Well, that's because the group was called the 12, the team was called the 12. Everybody was there who was part of it, except for Thomas. But apparently with 10, that's a quorum, they're still the 12.

And so, when Jesus said, "You 12 will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel," I don't think he, well he certainly did not mean that Judas would be among them, although Judas was there when he made the promise. He's just making a promise that applies to the 12, of which at that moment Judas was a member, but at a later time he was not, but they were still the 12.

So yeah, he said you 12, but I think he means you the group of 12. And as far as the constituency of that group, you know, they were still the 12, even after the first of them died as a martyr, James in Acts chapter 12, they were still the 12 after that, though there were now only 11. So that's how I understand it. Now, of course, the fulfillment of it is a question.

Some people think that the 12 will sit on 12 thrones and judge Israel during a future millennium. But since the Bible in my opinion doesn't teach that there will be a future millennium, one could modify that and say they'll do so in the new earth because we're going to be reigning with Christ and it's not impossible that they would have a unique position in that place. Or it could be spiritualized.

It's clear that they had spiritual authority and were making the decisions for the remnant of the 12 tribes of Israel who were in the church in Jerusalem and they were the leaders. Now some might say, but they didn't literally sit on thrones. No, they didn't. And so it depends on how literally you insist on taking things. In my opinion, the word thrones, the word crowns, things like that, are not always literal. They simply are of ruling, being in charge, being the ones in authority.

And the apostles certainly had that role in the Jewish church, which was comprised of the believing remnant of the 12 tribes of Israel. And I think much of what's said even in the Old Testament about Israel and its 12 tribes is, we see in the New Testament applied really to the faithful remnant in that Israel, not every Jew because many Jews are anti-God. So that's just how I understand it.

I honestly don't know if he's talking about the future or in the time that they lived and oversaw the Jewish church in Jerusalem, which they did, of course, after he was gone. Jesus did say in the parallel to this in Matthew 19 verse 28, Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on his throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel."

Now, does Jesus sit on the throne of his glory now? Well, he's at the right hand of God at his Father's right hand in on his Father's throne. Is that a throne of glory? Could be. So is he saying that when I ascend, in the regeneration, I will be reigning and you'll reign with me over and you'll be reigning responsibly over the 12 tribes of Israel. Now, I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't really care how he understood it, but I will say this, that the word regeneration that he uses here is surprising because if he's talking about a future when he comes back, you'd think he'd say in the resurrection.

That's typical. When Jesus comes back, he's going to resurrect the dead and sometimes that time is called the resurrection, as when he said in the resurrection people won't be married or given in marriage. But here he doesn't use the word resurrection, he's used the word regeneration, in the regeneration. Now, this Greek word is only found one other time in the Bible and it is in Titus chapter 3 verse 5.

Paul says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit." This sounds like the being born again, regeneration, washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. Now that's the only other place you find the word regeneration in the Bible. So when Jesus said to the disciples in the regeneration, he may well have been speaking about in the age that would come when the Spirit comes, when they're born again, when the church comes into existence as a new creation, then that's when they would hold this authoritative role.

I put that out there only because it's certainly a possibility given the data we have. I don't know if that's what he meant or not, it's a little obscure obviously. Alright, we're going to talk next to Carl in Salinas, California. Carl, welcome to The Narrow Path.

Carl: How are you doing? I've got a real quick question for you. I've been battling with some dispensationalists over the power that the Jews have during the dispensational attitude. And I was wondering how would I respond to them when I tell them the Last Supper, the new covenant that was established by Christ was the only covenant still in effect?

Steve Gregg: Yeah. You mean as opposed to having the old covenant still in effect also? Yeah, because you know they assert that the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect. Well in the Abrahamic covenant the Jews are not separate. The Abrahamic covenant is a covenant God made with the whole earth, all the families of the earth. He did say that the offspring of Abraham would be the avenue of blessing to all the nations of the earth.

But Paul tells us in Galatians 3 that these Abrahamic promises pertain to Christ. He's the blessing to the whole earth and that's why Jesus told his disciples, go and make disciples of all the nations. Why? Because he has authority over all heaven and earth and because he's the King of everything now. So go and make disciples, tell them to obey me. And as people have done this, they've been blessed and Paul also in Galatians 3 refers to the blessing of Abraham as justification by faith.

So the blessing that God has to the nations is justification by faith and he also mentions that we receive the Holy Spirit by faith in Galatians 3. Galatians 3 is Paul's exposition about the Abrahamic covenant promises and it's very clear to anyone who's not blinded by dispensationalism. Paul's saying very clear things. In fact, at the very end of chapter 3 of Galatians, he says, "And if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's seed and you're the heirs according to the promise."

So if you belong to Jesus, he's writing mostly to Gentile Galatians because we know they weren't circumcised, that was the whole reason he wrote the book is people are trying to get them to be circumcised. So they were not Jews, they were Gentiles. He said if you belong to Christ, you are Abraham seed. I thought Abraham seed was the Jews. No he said earlier in verse 16 the promises were not made to Abraham and his seeds plural, but to his seed singular, which is Jesus he says.

Now, okay so what is the Abrahamic covenant then? That God told Abraham that through his seed, and we know that that means Christ, all the nations of the earth will be blessed. That's the promise. That's the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12:1-3. And so has that happened? It certainly has. Christ Abraham's seed and those of us who are Abraham seed in him have carried the Gospel and the blessing of Abraham of justification by faith to all the nations and continue to do so.

So this is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. There's nothing in there about the Jews per se. Now if someone says, but Abraham seed initially were the Jews. Well wait a minute. Initially, the first of Abraham seed was Ishmael, not Isaac. Isaac wasn't even born yet. The Jews come from Isaac, the Arabs come from Ishmael. If we want to talk about literally just anyone who's born from Abraham, we're going to have to include Ishmael in there as Abraham seed because he was Abraham seed for 13 years before Isaac was born.

And then after Isaac was born, Abraham had six other kids, six other sons by Keturah. So Abraham has eight men immediately in his sons' generations who were Abraham seed. But none of them are particularly related to the promise. And that's what Paul makes clear in Romans 9. He says it's not the children of the flesh, that is not the natural-born seed of Abraham, it's the children of the promise that are the children of God.

So I mean if someone says well the promise God made to Abraham was to the Jews, where's it say that? No it's a promise to all the families of the earth. God told Abraham through you I will make you a blessing to all the families of the earth through your seed. Okay well that has certainly happened through Christ. Now if they want to try to talk about land promises and so forth, well those are conditional.

God solidified that in the covenant he made at Mount Sinai. But that covenant made it very clear that their claim to the land was conditional upon their keeping his covenant. And you only have to read the Old Testament to find out if they did that or not. Now what the writer of Hebrews tells us in Hebrews 8:13, he says, "In that he says a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete. Now what has become obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

When the writer wrote this, the temple was about to be destroyed within a few years' time. So the whole covenantal system based in the temple and priesthood and sacrifice and so forth, that covenant that God made at Mount Sinai was about to vanish and be obliterated. But he said it's already obsolete. He said in speaking of a new covenant, you've already made the first one obsolete.

Carl: In your debate with I believe it was Michael Brown, did this specific topic get covered in that debate?

Steve Gregg: Well, it was brought up. It's hard to say whether it was adequately covered because even though we had three debates and that might seem like a very lengthy debate, the subject permeates all Scripture and all theology, so obviously we could only scratch the surface. I did mention these kinds of things and these passages, but it may well have gotten lost in the muddle.

Carl: Yeah, these people that I'm debating with, they're just insisting that the Jews can do no wrong and it doesn't matter what kind of destruction they do to the planet or anybody at all, and they're still going to be blessed and we're going to send money to them and uphold them.

Steve Gregg: Wait, wait, wait. Did the prophets know this? Did the prophets get the memo about this that Israel could do no wrong?

Carl: This is exactly where I'm trying to find enough information to open their eyes.

Steve Gregg: Yeah, I don't think the prophets ever heard that doctrine. The idea that Israel could do no wrong, I mean there wouldn't be any prophets in the Old Testament if Israel could do no wrong. Those prophets were all sent because Israel did very wrong things and God was threatening them with extinction or destruction.

Carl: Hebrews chapter 1 verse 3 says straight out that every word that came out of Jesus' mouth is binding, correct?

Steve Gregg: Well, that's not the exact wording of that. It says that he is the express image of God's person and the bright shining of his glory.

Carl: I mean Hebrews chapter 1 verse 2 then, right?

Steve Gregg: Well in verse 2, you might be thinking of a different book because in Hebrews chapter 1... oh you might be thinking of chapter 2. Hebrews 2:2, "For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast and every transgression and disobedience received just recompense, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation which at first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him". Is that the passage you're thinking of?

Carl: Yeah, I'm thinking so. In other words, the words that Jesus spoke has the authority over all the prophets.

Steve Gregg: Well that's absolutely true. Well that would agree also with Hebrews chapter 1:1 through 3 where he talks about how God spoke through the prophets but in these last days has spoken to us through his Son. So yeah, that's in chapter 1 also, different wording.

Carl: Alright I'll try that angle on them.

Steve Gregg: Well let me also suggest, have you listened to my lectures called "What Are We To Make Of Israel"?

Carl: Yes.

Steve Gregg: Okay because the notes to that lecture series and many others is at matthew713.com. Look under lecture notes and you'll find the notes to that series.

Carl: Awesome, I appreciate you guys, God bless.

Steve Gregg: Thank you for your call Carl, God bless. Okay, John in Salyersville, Kentucky, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

John: Hi Steve. I had a comment about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son is not eternal, he was made of a woman. He came 2,000 years ago. But the Spirit of the Son is eternal, which is the Father. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. To us there's but one God the Father. So the Father was made flesh, John 1:14. God gave his life for us, 1 John 3:16.

Steve Gregg: Well, I'm not a Oneness Pentecostal so I see things a little differently, but I understand what you're saying. Because definitely Jesus took on a new identity when he was made flesh among us, but he had a prior identity in heaven in God as the Word. That's what John chapter 1 is telling us. I realize you're saying that and I agree with you on that.

I'm not a Oneness Pentecostal though, so I don't fully agree with the idea that Jesus is the Father made flesh because Jesus when he was with us, he said the Father is greater than I. And he often even distinguished between himself and his Father. He said, "I didn't come to do my will, I came to do my Father's will," like the Father has a different will than him.

In fact, when he prayed to the Father, he said, "Father if it's your will let this cup pass from me, but not my will but yours be done." So he's saying that the Father had a will and Jesus had a different will but he was submitting his will to the Father. In John chapter 5 where the Pharisees accused Jesus of bearing witness of himself, which to a Jewish mind you have to have two witnesses to have an established testimony, Jesus said, "Well I have another who bears witness. I bear witness of myself and my Father also bears witness to me." So he's saying that's two witnesses right there. In other words, he's one and the Father is another.

Now, I realize that's difficult because the Bible does say there's only one God as you pointed out. And because it also says that the Father is God and that Jesus is also called God and the Holy Spirit is too. So I understand the difficulty here. The Oneness Pentecostals say that the Father became the Son who then after ascension became the Holy Spirit to the church.

And that's called modalism, and it is primarily one of two ways that Christians have generally tried to resolve the whole question and the mystery of how Jesus is God and the Son of God. And I appreciate the effort honestly. I feel like those who take this view are doing the best they know how to resolve that. The Trinitarian explanation is the alternative to that.

While I don't have any emotional attachment to one view over the other, I think that scripturally speaking the Trinitarian view has fewer holes in it. I'd say that to me although not everyone explains the Trinity the same way, some Trinitarian formula in my opinion is the one that has the least problematic case in Scripture. Because like I say, modalism would make Jesus and the Father the same person.

And Jesus talked very much as if the Father and he had different wills, he had a different mission regarding God's will rather than his own and things like that. So I think that we have to have separation as well as identification between the Father and the Son and that's the mystery. That's the hard part. Though I appreciate you sharing that.

John: Can I ask a question before we hang up?

Steve Gregg: Okay.

John: How did God become a man? It says God can't be tempted, is not a man that he can be tempted. So God lowered himself and became as a man. Hold on just a second.

Steve Gregg: Well no, I can't let you tell me to hold on because I'm looking at a clock that's going to run out here in just like a minute or two or so, and we have another caller I'd like to get on if I can. But you ask a good question. How can God become a man? It's a great question, but we're not given a good answer, except the answer is God can do whatever he wants to do.

If God wants to take on a human form to live among us, I guess he could do that just like he could come in the form of a pillar of cloud or a pillar of fire in the Old Testament and still be everywhere in the universe at the same time but manifesting his presence in only one place. That is certainly a possibility too. But in 1 Timothy chapter 3 verse 16, Paul said without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifested in the flesh.

Jesus was manifested just like God was manifested in a pillar of cloud or in a burning bush or other ways in the Old Testament. God can manifest himself in one place and still exist in all other places unmanifested. Manifested means revealed or made visible. So Paul says he was manifested in the flesh. But it says without controversy that's a great mystery.

So if we say, how could God be manifested in the flesh? Paul says well that's a great mystery. And he said without controversy it's a great mystery. In other words, I doubt that anyone sensible who knew the case would argue that that's not a great mystery. It really is. But God can do things that are mysterious to us because he's God and we're not. So I really I can't answer your question, but I think that's how Paul responds to it. I'm just about out of time. Priscilla from British Columbia, can you make use of a minute or two?

Priscilla: Hi, it says the smell of perfume changes throughout the day. I would like you to expand on this nice Friday and closing with how do we keep our fragrance in line and biblical so we are remaining like the Rose of Sharon. Much love, thank you. Let's expand on that as much as we can. Salute.

Steve Gregg: Well, I'd like to say that made sense to me, but I'm not sure that it does. And until it does I can't really give a very good answer. It sounds like you're making an analogy from earthly perfume that when a woman puts on perfume it smells a certain way and then later in the day it smells different, I think that's what you said. And then you're trying to make an analogy to us having an aroma, a pleasing aroma.

I don't see it as a biblical analogy but if you're saying how can we avoid having our spiritual aroma change? I guess it would just be by staying close to Christ. But I'd have to think a long time to even be sure that I know what you're referring to. But obviously the music's playing, I don't have a long time. But just stay faithful to Christ. That's the answer to just about every question I'd say.

You're listening to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg and we are a listener-supported ministry. If you'd like to help us pay the radio bills, that's how we stay on the air. You can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or just go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. You can donate from there, though everything is free at thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.