20260306

.

Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast.

My name is Steve Greg and we're live for an hour each week day after noon.

Taking your calls if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or you disagree

with the host and want to balance comment, be glad to talk to you this day and every

week day at the same time.

I guess people are waiting to find out if this is live or not.

Yesterday we had to play a recorded show for the first half because we couldn't get hooked

up to this video.

However, we are live and no calls are waiting, which means there's a wide open switchboard

for you to get through.

Right now, the number to call is 844-484-5737.

I've been announcing, and this will be the last time I announce this, tonight.

I'm in Wisconsin, on Alaska, Wisconsin, debating a man who is now a friend.

I met him today after lunch and I really enjoyed talking with him.

Joel Richardson.

We're debating on the millennial question pretty much.

If you're interested in that subject, you may want to join us if you happen to be nearby.

We've heard two different things.

It's different.

It was at six o'clock or at 6.30.

I believe it's six o'clock.

And if it's at 6.30, it won't hurt you to show up at six o'clock.

So I'm going to announce it at six o'clock, and I think that's what it is.

And it's going to be about three hours tonight, a debate.

Joel Richardson has come in to Wisconsin from Kansas, where he lives.

I've flown in from California, so it's the big confrontation.

However, he and I have spent the last hour together visiting, and I really enjoy him.

I told him that whenever I debate somebody, I always prefer to debate somebody I like.

On a very, very few occasions I've done debates with the person my opponent was not very

likeable.

But I usually like to get together with the opponent beforehand, have a meal together,

get to know each other, and certainly 95% of the time the people in the beginning are

quite cordial and quite nice, and it looks like it's going to be a pleasant thing.

So that's happening tonight.

And your kids lines are filling up.

The number is 844-484-5737.

And I suppose we might as well go to the phones right now and talk to John in Atlanta, Georgia.

Hi, John.

Welcome to the narrow path.

Thanks for calling.

Steve, thank you for taking my call.

Just a quick question.

When in first John or second John, I believe when John says to the church at Babylon, I think

he says greetings or something.

I don't have the Bible open.

Can you explain what he means by that?

Actually, you're thinking of first Peter, chapter 5, at the end of first Peter when he's

signing off the book.

He says in chapter 12, chapter 13, excuse me, he says, she who is in Babylon, elect together

with you, greets you, and so does Mark my son.

Now she who is in Babylon, it's generally thought that he's referring to a church.

For congregation, he's sending greetings to him.

Apparently, Peter is where these people are and they're sending their greetings along

with him as he sends off this letter to his recipients.

And he said his recipients are over in Asia Minor and places like that, so he's wherever

John is, is where these people are.

And he's referring to his location as Babylon.

Now there are different theories about this.

There are some who believe, some commentators say, that is really literally Babylon, that

he's up in Mesopotamia, that there wasn't much population in Babylon at that time, I don't

think.

But there were some people up there and there might have been a church up there.

And he might have been writing from there and the people of the church in Babylon want

to send him greetings as well.

However, the more common view is that Babylon is being used as a code name for Rome.

Babylon and Rome had much in common.

For one thing, both of them destroyed the Jewish nation.

And different times Babylon and 586 BC, you know, Rome in 70 and he had not yet happened,

but it was Peter knew it was going to happen, Jesus created it.

And so there's sort of like the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem was kind of a type and

the shadow of what Rome would do.

And also, both of them were of course the center of the pagan world in their day.

Babylon was the center of the pagan world in its day.

Rome was the center of the pagan world in his day.

That might be how the early Christians came to symbolically refer to Rome as Babylon.

One thing in favor of it being Rome is that we got strong, petristic traditions as the

church fathers tell us that Peter spent his final years in Rome.

We have no independent information about him ever being in literal Babylon, but Peter's

last days of ministry and his martyrdom took place in Rome.

And so it's many think it's much more likely that that's where he is riding from.

I think that too.

You know, no one knows for sure.

It is possible he's riding from actual Babylon, but in all likelihood he's riding from Rome,

we have strong tradition that he spent the end of his life there.

And of course, Babylon being a codename for Rome is not uncommon.

In fact, many people believe, I don't think I'm among them, but I can see an argument

for it.

Many people believe that in revelation that mystery Babylon is a reference to Rome.

It certainly is a possibility.

I have another view, but it's not a crazy idea.

So I'm thinking that Rome is associated with Babylon in more than one way in the mind

of the early Christians, and apparently in Scripture, too.

So my guess is he's sending greetings from the Christians there to the Christians in

Asia Minor and the places he's riding to.

All right.

Great answer.

Thank you, Steve.

I appreciate it.

Okay, John.

Thanks for your call.

Great question.

Bye.

Bye.

I was wondering if you have any cake on the Ethiopian Bible, anything about this cannon?

I know very little about it.

In fact, I'd say until maybe a month or two ago, I wasn't even aware of the Ethiopian

cannon.

That's how unaware I am of North African Christianity.

I guess, but I've heard about it a number of times since then.

I guess maybe someone must be popularizing it on the Internet, and so I'm starting to

hear a question about it.

I do not know much about it.

All I know is it's got, I believe, quite a few books that are not found in the traditional

Jewish cannon of Scripture.

They would all be in my, as I understand it, all of them would be Old Testament era books,

so it wouldn't be like they have a different New Testament collection, but that their Old

Testament collection is longer.

I know they have the Book of Enoch in there, which isn't in either the Catholic or the Protestant

Old Testament.

Although the Catholic Church has seven books in their Old Testament that are not in Protestant

Bibles.

The Protestants have 39 Old Testament books.

Catholics have what we call the Apocrypha, which is made up of seven more books.

And then I believe the Ethiopian cannon has several more besides that.

Now really, that's just facts and figures.

Probably your real concern is should we pay attention to the Ethiopian cannon, or these

books that are in it, something we've been missing out on that we should pay attention

to.

Like maybe is that the true cannon of Old Testament and somehow ours have been illegitimately

abbreviated?

And if that's your question, I would say I wouldn't be concerned about it.

First of all, all the books that are not in the Protestant Old Testament cannon are not

written by prophets.

And they were written in the Inter-Testimental period after the last of the prophets came

to Israel, which was Malachi, until John the Baptist.

There was 400 years between those two who called the Inter-Testimental period, and the Jews

wrote lots of religious books, but they weren't written by inspired writers, which is why

the Protestant Stone included, and the Jews don't.

The Jews don't include it in their Old Testament scriptures either.

But there are holy books and edifying books that were written in that period of time, which

the Roman Catholics included in their Old Testament though the Jews did not in theirs.

And even Martin Luther, obviously who put together the Luther Bible following what we'd

call now a Protestant cannon of the Old Testament, he thought that the seven apocryphal

books that the Catholics had in their Bible were edifying.

He said they could be read for edification, but he just didn't believe they were scripture.

Even the Catholics themselves put those seven books in a different category than the

main cannon of the Old Testament.

They refer to it as deuterochemonical, which means a second cannon, which is they don't

take it to be as authoritative or whatever inspired as the 39 books that all Christians

recognize.

And that's the main point.

That those some regions like Ethiopia have fatter cannons of scripture, including a few

more books than others do, all Christians everywhere accept the 39 books that the Jews

accept as their Old Testament and that the Protestants have in their Bible.

So the question of whether any of these other books are useful, helpful, worth reading

or not would be, well, maybe they are maybe not, but I don't believe a case can be made

that any of them are actually inspired.

And that's the reason that Protestants don't usually include them.

Well, you saw anything?

Yeah.

Hey, listen, I was wondering why the Book of Enoch is saying the Ethiopian Bible, but it's

not.

I mean, Enoch was the only person that God ever took to heaven alive.

Yeah.

And if he had written the Book of Enoch, that would be a very interesting thing to include

in the Bible.

The Jews don't include it because it was not written by Enoch.

The Book of Enoch was written around 200 years before Christ, which is directly in the center

of the intertest mental period when no actual prophets were living.

The man Enoch had actually lived, what, 25 or 3500 years before that, before the flood.

And of course, so several centuries off, the Enoch, the man, was taken up by God probably

three, three millennia before the Book of Enoch was written.

So it seems evident, you know, I didn't write it.

More than that, at the time when the Book of Enoch was written, it was recognized as what

we call a pseudopigriful book.

Now, that's a word you don't have to know by name.

You don't have to memorize it.

But pseudopigriful means written under an assumed name.

That is, somebody else wrote it.

And who really wrote it?

We don't know.

It's really anonymously written.

But the person who wrote it claimed to be, you know, and by the way, there's quite a

few books written during the intertest mental period that are like that.

We don't know who their real authors were, but they claim to be famous people from the past.

And that's kind of a, it was kind of a trend in that period of time for people to write

their own books and claim to be someone famous, write them.

But in every case, they were written far too late in time to be really written by the authors

whose names they bear.

So, you know, it's an interesting book.

The book in Vienna is very interesting.

The problem is that many people, when they read it, don't realize it's just a fiction.

It's a fiction.

It might be edifying.

There's lots of religious fiction that's edifying, but it doesn't belong in the Bible because

it's not written by an inspired author.

And more importantly, it's not written by the author that it claims to be by, which makes

it obviously a forgery.

Thank you for your call, though.

You're listening to the narrow path.

We are live, and if you want to give us a call, we've got a few lines open right now.

You can call me at 844-484-5737.

You're going to be on the air.

844-484-5737.

Our next caller is Jesse calling from Alisa Viejo, California.

Welcome to the narrow path, Jesse.

Yeah, hi.

Thank you, Steve.

Listen, needless to say, listen to you a long time and appreciate your work.

Basically, I'm calling because every now and then, people call and ask you certain things.

And sometimes it's hard to get a definite answer.

Go ahead.

Go ahead and ask and look at the get one.

Yeah, right.

There's a mistranslations in the Bible, and I'm an adherent of the George Lancet Bible

and coming from the Aramaic point of view.

Example, for example, where it says Hebrew people, there was a time when someone asked

you where did the Hebrew word or originator or the name.

And basically the answer is from Aramaic, people who cross the river, hence then known

as the people across the river.

So you say that's what Hebrew means according to the Aramaic.

What do you think?

Well, you know, that may, in fact, be what the Aramaic word means.

That may be its etymology.

Many scholars believe that the word Hebrew actually comes from an earlier time.

The Hebrews cross the river, of course, with Joshua.

And they could be referred to by that name, people who cross the river.

Many scholars believe that the word Hebrew is etymology goes back to the man Eber, who

was just a few generations after the flood before 8am's time.

And so it would be long before the Hebrews crossed the river.

Now I don't know.

I mean, there's different theories, and that's possible.

I will say this about the Lamb's of Bible, and people may not know of it.

The Lamb's of Bible is translated from the Aramaic.

Now Aramaic is the language that Jesus and the disciples were probably speaking in their area in Palestine.

Aramaic was the local dialect.

And many people, I think, George Lane's Lamb himself believed that the New Testament was not really written in Greek.

It was written in Aramaic.

That's fine.

That's well.

Yeah.

So that was how we get to that later.

I was going to get to that later, there was time.

Oh, well, you know, I will say this.

I don't think it was written in Aramaic.

Now Matthew, the first book of the New Testament, there was an Aramaic version.

The church fathers tell us that Matthew had written a collection of the Sains of Jesus called the Logia in Aramaic.

He actually said in Hebrew, but I believe that he's referring to Aramaic.

Most scholars would agree with that.

So Matthew first wrote like a rough draft, I think, of his gospel in Aramaic, though it was later translated into Greek and perhaps expanded.

I think the first version of Matthew may have simply been a list of Jesus' Sains, sort of like what the gospel Thomas is.

The Thomas is not written by an inspired writer, but some of the early things written by Jesus were collections of the Sains.

The gospel of Matthew, as we have it now, has more than just the Sains of Jesus, has a lot of his actions too.

And as far as we know, the form of Matthew that we have now was written in Greek originally.

Now, Aramaic was the language of the people in Palestine, but none of the rest of the New Testament, except possibly Hebrews, were written to people in Palestine.

I mean, like Paul's epistles were all written to people out in the Gentile world who wouldn't know any Aramaic.

The Corinthians, for example, and the Philippians and many others were Greeks.

And, you know, Aramaic was just not a language spoken among the Greeks, so it'd be very strange for Paul to write the churches in that language.

It would not be strange for him to write in Greek, because whether they were Greeks or not, the Greek language was known throughout the empire.

Unlike Aramaic, Greek was known throughout the empire and had been for 300 years.

When Alexander the Great conquered the region, he made Greek the language of the whole Mediterranean world, so by the time Jesus came along, the whole world was speaking Greek for 300 years.

They knew that each area had their own dialect of whatever was their local language, and in Palestine that would have been Aramaic.

So anything written to people in Palestine would reasonably be written, either in Greek or Aramaic, but things written to people outside Palestine, it'd make no sense to write in Aramaic, since they'd have to get transferred to make sense of it for them.

I don't really have a dog in that fight. If the whole Bible was written in Aramaic, it wouldn't bother me.

I think the evidence is very slight, probably not good.

For example, a clement of Alexandria thought that the book of Hebrews was written by Paul, originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, and that the Greek form we have now was translated into Greek by Luke, because the style of Greek in Hebrew, in the book of Hebrews, excuse me, and in Luke and Acts, Luke's productions, are the best style of Greek in the whole Bible.

There are things that sound like Paul's teaching in the book of Hebrews, but the Greek is much better in Hebrews than is the Greek in any of Paul's epistles, as he didn't seem to be as literary in the language as Luke was.

So a clement of Alexandria speculated that Paul may have written in Aramaic, and it was translated into Greek by Luke.

There's a problem with that though, and that is because in Hebrews, there is a play on words that only works in Greek and does not work in Aramaic, and if it had been written in Aramaic, the author would not have been able to make this play on words.

It's the fact that in Greek the word for covenant is the same as the word for a will, and so you could use the same word in Greek to mean a covenant or a will.

This is not the case in Aramaic or Hebrew, and yet the author of Hebrews does that, he talks about the covenant, the old covenant, and says, you know, a covenant is not enforced until the testator dies, and then he's talking about a will.

That works if he's writing in Greek. It doesn't work if he's writing in Aramaic, so it's pretty strong evidence that Hebrews was not written in Aramaic, but written in Greek.

And of all the New Testament books that you'd expect to be written in Aramaic, if any of them were, Hebrews is the one, because apart from Matthew, the book of Hebrews is the only book written to Jewish people.

Jewish Christians, all the others are written to Gentiles in far-flung areas that don't speak Aramaic, so to my mind, the case for an original New Testament in Aramaic is not strong.

Now we do, there are versions of the New Testament in Greek or Syriac, I'm sorry, Syriac is Aramaic, there are versions of it in Old Latin as well, in addition to our Greek translations, but almost all scholars I'm aware of believe that the original documents of the New Testament were pretty much written in Greek, and very early on, there were translations made into Syriac, which is Aramaic, and into Latin.

So anyways, there's a dispute about that, I've looked at that evidence, I think the evidence is pretty strong for a Greek original, but if someone disagrees with me, I don't have any bone to pick about it, I don't see anything as that stake, if you believe that it's all written in Aramaic.

I'm trying to take another call, we're running low on this time. Barbara in Roseville Michigan, welcome to the narrow path, thanks for calling.

Oh, thank you Steve, can you really explain what you said about those two witnesses, you said they were like countries or something, I never heard anything like that and I kind of missed it, can you re-explain what that is and I'll hang up.

The two witnesses in Revelation 11, okay, I'll be right to talk about it, sure.

Well, no, they're not two countries, at least I don't think they are, there's a lot of views, first of all, a lot of views of the book of Revelation itself, and then there's probably even more opinions about who the two witnesses are.

A number of commentators I've read said that they think Revelation 11 is maybe the hardest chapter in the book to interpret, because there's so many theories about the two witnesses.

The popular theory, of course, is that the two witnesses are two actual men. The popular view is that one of them is Elijah, and then some people think the second one might be Moses or might be Hinock, but the popular view is that these are two men who are going to appear in the end times, and so, and the two witnesses will be a reappearance of Elijah and either Moses or Hinock.

I don't accept this view, partly because I don't take the future's view, and as I said there's several other views of Revelation and several other views of the two witnesses.

Some think they represent the law and the prophets, some think they represent the old covenant and the new covenant, some think they mean things like that.

In my opinion, because of the context and what is said about them, I personally believe they are, they represent the church throughout the whole history since Christ has come until the end of the age.

Now, that view is not going to immediately commend itself to many of our listeners, perhaps unless they've already come to that view themselves, and I'm not prepared to make a long argument for it.

It's not that I'm not prepared to make an argument. I certainly can do that. I'm just not prepared to make a long one here, because it would take too long.

But I will say, if you want somewhat more of a long argument on it, you can go to my website, thenarrowpath.com.

I have, first by verse teachings there, through the whole Bible that I've given, and the recorded audio.

And you can listen to them for free or download them for free, so what you can do is go to thenarrowpath.com.

There's a tab there that says verse by verse, lectures, go there, look up the book of Revelation, look up Revelation 11, and you'll get a more thorough treatment of that that I've given, more thorough that I can give here.

And now we've got a break coming up in this format, I can only have time to say so much.

I hope that's helpful to you.

Also, of course, my book, Revelation 4 Views of parallel comes here, also would obviously give some of the different views for that.

My view would be in there too, although I don't mention in my book what view I prefer.

But my lectures I do, so you can find out that those are the resources available to get into that in detail.

We have one line open at the moment. If you want to call, we have a half hour coming up.

We're almost at the bottom of this hour, and there'll be another half hour after we take a short break.

And if you want to be in line to be on the air, the number to call is 844-484-5737.

I've made several references to our website. It's loaded with a lot of things, including like 1,500 of my lectures on audio that you can just do for free.

It's got other resources too, but we also have an app, a mobile app, and I don't mention this all the time, but it's extremely convenient.

Essentially, everything on our website can be heard from the app also on your phone or other device, but our app is a little different.

than those apps, because you don't get it from the app store. You don't go get it from one of the app suppliers, Android, Google Play, or Apple's app store.

You need to get it from a browser.

Now, fortunately, your phone has a browser. You have probably Google, you might have Safari on your phone.

You go to the browser, and you look up a website, which is TheNarrowPath.app.

It's TheNarrowPath.app. Go to that website, and you can download an icon that looks like all your other apps on your phone.

And that gives you access to everything at our website. You can listen to hundreds and hundreds of lectures if you want to.

At TheNarrowPath.app, download it. It'll show you how to download it there.

Of course, our website itself is TheNarrowPath.com, and all those resources can be found there on your computer.

I need to take a break. Stay tuned. We have another half hour coming up.

If truth did exist, would it matter to you?

whom would you consult as an authority on the subject?

In a sixteen lecture series entitled The Authority of Scriptures, Steve Gregg not only thoroughly presents the case for the Bible's authority, but also explains how this truth is to be applied to a believer's daily walk and outlook.

The authority of Scriptures can be downloaded in MP3 format without charge from our website TheNarrowPath.com.

Welcome back to TheNarrowPath Radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour taking your calls.

Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast.

My name is Steve Greg and we're live for another half hour taking your calls.

Right now our lines are full so I won't give out the phone number at this time but if we

have some openings and time for them we'll give you that number again.

Let's see who's been there the longest quite a few people here.

Let's see Bob and Gorim main.

Second call from Maine today. Hi Bob.

Hi Steve. Yeah I just like to know you have something about Enoch.

So I heard somebody say one time that the 60 chapters was written by Enoch and the

ones after were written a couple hundred years before Jesus.

And well something interesting was I can't remember what book but Jesus was talking to the

Sadducees and they said you know when a man dies having no children is on that.

And what you said you don't you air not knowing the scriptures or the power of God and some

people think he's alluding to Enoch and therefore call Enoch scripture.

Well there was one not one man who said that that's that information as far as that type

of thing happening is written nowhere in the Bible except the book of Enoch.

And the other thought the other thought was also in Jude.

Jude says that Enoch prophesied about this generation so he was like a prophet.

I just just your thoughts on it.

Right well there's no question that Jude did quote the book of Enoch and let me talk

about that first.

I believe that Jude quoted Enoch partly because everybody was reading Enoch and just like

any preacher, preachers often give illustrations from popular literature that everybody's

reading.

I compare it with when preachers give illustrations and their sermons from the Chronicles

of Narnia or something like that, neither they nor their listeners believe that the Chronicles

of Narnia are scripture but they make the same point he's trying to make you know he'll

find a parallel and it's just kind of adds color to a sermon to have you know illustrations

from popular literature.

Jude wrote it as someone many people were reading the book of Enoch who's very popular.

Whether they thought he not really wrote it or not I don't know.

Obviously he says he says Enoch the seventh from Adam wrote of these people and but then

again we could just say which I say you know if someone if we have a fictional book let's

just say it's Moby Dick and the author calls himself Ishmael although it wasn't written

by Ishmael.

We were saying in Moby Dick Ishmael did such and such or Ishmael said such and such because

that's you know the identity of the person is part of the story and so that so the fact

that Jude and possibly some other New Testament writers there's some dispute about much

of it may have alluded to and quoted from Enoch doesn't tell us whether they thought it

was scripture or not.

Now when Jesus said you you know he said you air to say he's not knowing the scriptures

or the power of God he says for in the resurrection they do not marry or and are not given

in marriage but they're like the angels of God it is true the book of Enoch has a statement

that the angels don't get married so some people say oh there it is you know the Bible

doesn't tell us anywhere else that angels don't get married although anyone writing religious

fiction might have might have deduced it or or imagined it and 50 hits of chance they

were right.

Jesus knew whether they do or not you know but yes some people think well he expected them

to know the book of Enoch because Enoch says angels don't get married but that wouldn't

really answer the point they weren't asking him if angels get married or not if he thought

Enoch was scripture and they asked if angels get married and he said what don't you know

the scriptures says right there in Enoch they don't get married.

He was saying they were asking whether people in the resurrection get married or not they

said no in the resurrection they don't but they are like the angels who don't but obviously

he could affirm that the angels don't get married even if no one else had said it before

or or if it was in a book that he's not calling scripture but why did you say you don't

know the scripture so the power of God if he's not referred to Enoch as scripture.

Well he's saying that the resurrection they're they're not refuting whether angels are

married or not they're asking whether there's a resurrection or not they're trying to prove

there's not and they're just ridiculous to believe it he said well if you do the scriptures

you know better than to do that because there are discussions of resurrection somewhat

in this Old Testament scriptures so he would not be necessarily referring to Enoch and

of course the power of God would be whether God's able to raise the debt or not so Jesus

is defending the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead that's what they didn't believe

in that's what they were asking about and in the case that they would have known if they

had known the scriptures better but he you know he could easily be talking about any of

the scriptures that make reference to the resurrection when it's Isaiah 26 or maybe Daniel 12

or some others Jesus himself said that the resurrection is implied in certain places

he quoted when God said to Moses I'm the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob now that's

in the penitude but it doesn't mention the resurrection but Jesus said hey figured out

God's not the God of dead people but of living people when he spoke to Moses Abraham

Isaac and Jacob had been long dead how could he be their God if they're God if they're

God for good you know so I mean right so he's implying that you know not not so much that

the scriptures speak plainly about the resurrection but the way he reads the scriptures he can

draw inferences from it so you should have been able to figure this kind of stuff out too

yeah okay all right so Steve thanks a lot I appreciate it okay about thanks to your cobra

all right our next caller is Daniel in New Rochelle New York hi Daniel welcome to the

narrow path hey Steve hey how are you good thanks yes yeah yes Steve I'm gonna ask you today

uh it's about a prayer there's a there's a two prayers there's a one prayer that

stank and stank Anthony prayer and and and that they'll think the miracles right

up for miracles and like lost items I didn't find the lost items I didn't then there's the

same Michael prayer that's like prayer that's like for that's like for that's a prayer to like

protect protect us from evil from evil and like you know I guess evil so I'm gonna ask you

when I prayed the thing that is when I prayed the thing that's any prayer one time it didn't

really help me so you need to pray is really worth or well I don't I don't think prayers are

supposed to be something that work or don't work prayer is when you as a child of God come to your

father with a request and if it's his will to grant it you trust that he will if it's not his

will to grant it and sometimes it might not be you trust that he's got good reasons for not doing

it's it's a relationship of trust toward a father by a child now a child who has a father

doesn't always give his request because sometimes he asks for things that the father sees is not

not the most desirable thing to grant for for the well-being of the child and everybody else

concerned the child doesn't know that but he submits his request to his father knowing that his

father will do the right thing and if it's the father's will to grant that specific request that

his father will do it and it's the same thing in prayer I don't know the same Anthony prayer or

the same Michael prayer these I assume these must come out of Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox

and I'm not sure I mean I've heard I've heard their names I've never heard what those prayers say

but it's not as if the father gives you some programmatic prayers you can memorize and repeat and

somehow there's some power in repeating the words because allegedly they were originally prayed by

someone important in the past that's not really the mentality the Bible has about prayer I mean

if St. Anthony or St. Michael is thinking about the Archangel Michael I don't know what his

prayers be I just don't I don't follow those kinds of things when I pray I want to follow

the teaching of Jesus in the apostles that doesn't mean those prayers are bad prayers I mean they

may be excellent prayers but it's not as if you know well I'm praying what St. Anthony prayed

and therefore God had better listen because you know St. Anthony is somebody important nobody's

is important as Jesus and so I pray to God in the name of Jesus and that's that's about as much

afforties you can invest in a prayer I think all right thank you Daniel let's see

Jimmy and James Port Missouri welcome to the narrow path thanks for calling

I see I get a quick question about Impalm and Romans over I think it's 25 he talked about

the fullness of the Gentiles coming in uh-huh

also mentioned in Luke 21.4 and what I want to understand is it appears to me that you equate

the fullness of the Gentiles with the church age and I'd like to know why okay well first of all

the fullness of the Gentiles which Paul mentions in Romans 11 25 is not the same phrase it's found

in Luke 21 24 there it is Jerusalem should be trodden and foot by the Gentiles until the times

of the Gentiles are fulfilled so you've got in Luke 21 24 you've you've got the times of the

Gentiles and then in you know Romans you've got the fullness of the Gentiles it's true many people

just assume these mean the same things and and they might they very well might in fact I assume

they do but they I have to realize they might they might not why do I believe that well okay

Jesus said Jerusalem he tried down by the Gentiles he said this would happen in in that generation

it did uh you know the Romans came and they destroyed Jerusalem and they trampled on it and Gentiles

trampled on it for essentially most of the church age one could argue they still are although some

people say ever since the Jews took back you know all of Jerusalem in the 1967 war of the Gentiles

don't trample on it anymore but it's hard to know exactly what Gentiles trampling on it mean if it

just means their feet walk on it then that still happens Gentiles still do it or if it means

Gentiles dominated or or continue to afflict it some of those things could be said to still be

happening it's not clear what it means that troops may trodden under foot by the Gentiles

till the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled but at least you know at least that that statement

would suggest from AD 7 until at least the 1900s and I would be more fine to say until the present

time you know that's the times of the Gentiles because when that's done the Gentiles presumably

will no longer tread on Jerusalem under foot as far as the fullness of the Gentiles is concerned

that's not too difficult either to me uh Paul said that all of Israel will be saved in verse 26

by that the context makes it very clear he means all the branches of the olive tree Jews and Gentiles

because he's talked about Israel being saved and he gives the illustration of the olive tree

which is just immediately before these verses you're talking about and he borrows an illustration

from Jeremiah which says that Israel is an olive tree and so Paul says that some of those branches

in the olive tree been cut off because of their unbelief so some Jewish people are not part of Israel

because they don't believe in Jesus and they said and you Gentiles because of your faith in Jesus

having grafted in so the branches on the tree are Gentiles who believe and Jews who believe

but excluding Jews who don't believe who've been broken off then he says before I don't want you

to be ignorant of this mystery that partial blindness has happened to Israel until the fullness of

the Gentiles become in and so that is in this way all Israel will be saved now what's that mean

it means when when the Gentiles have come in to join the Jewish believers in the tree that is in

the Israel of God uh in that way all the Israel of God will be saved the Jews and the Gentile branches

now that's still going on Gentiles are still coming in so and they and they were coming in in

a Paul's time Paul said this had already begun the part of Israel is blinded in his own day

and remains so until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in well when are the Gentiles going to stop

coming in I you know I don't I don't read of any prediction of them stopping coming in anytime

before the end of the world so from Paul's day until hours would be included as the time when

the fullness of the Gentiles are coming in so that's why I tend to see those phrases both as

making some reference to the whole age of the church from Christ first coming to the second

am I still here on have I been taken off oh yeah I guess I I understand that Paul's talking about

the method in which the tree is being built and but what I don't understand is why we have to apply

for instance I was talking to a woman in the bag and her position is that what I can see

that the nation of the modern day nation of Israel is committing genocide she agreed with me on that

she said they're in apartheid state night and they are but she said she used this this phrase

that we're talking about and she said look Paul's very clear that they're blinded right now

you know and we're going to be blinded and still be in and then after that after the cold

of the Gentiles have come in then then just gonna start working on the ethnic Israel and

they can name it Paul doesn't say that Paul doesn't say that no well I know I know I know he doesn't

I know he doesn't but well what would you let me do this let me ask you this what what are you

you object to my interpretation of the fullness of the Gentiles what is your alternative I'm not

okay well the Gentiles in in Luke 2124 Jesus says in Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles

until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled well isn't he just saying the same same

why isn't he just saying Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles he's talking about the

destruction of the temple yeah and once the Gentiles once that once that has happened

but um that'll be fulfilled but why do we why do we take that to say that all the Jewish

generation past 70 AB are going to be hard and that it just seems I'm not sure what you're trying

to say my when you're object by saying is referring to the church age what I mean is the church

age began at Pentecost and ends when Jesus returns so in our whole the whole time since Jesus was

here till the time he returns is the period where God is bringing Gentiles in and therefore nobody's

arguing that those two I'm not arguing that Gentiles aren't bringing broad into the to the

olive tree what I'm saying is what does that have to do with Jerusalem being trampled down by the

Gentiles what does Gentiles coming into the body of Christ post 70 AB have to do with it says Jerusalem

will be trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled well are you not

saying that that Jerusalem's going to be trampled because of Gentiles until the end of the church

yeah in what way in what way is Jerusalem being trampled down by Gentiles well there's certainly

not without a flixion from Gentiles it's like I said in the beginning my answer I don't know if

you're listening then but I said that it's hard to know what trampling by the Gentiles looks like

whether it refers to you know it doesn't it doesn't it looks like what it looks like in 70 AB

if you mean three and a half years of trampling well that that was intensive trampling yeah but the

Gentiles control Gentiles control it for a long time after that too that's what I'm saying what

does it mean to be trampled under foot by the Gentiles does it mean that they are under the authority

of the Gentiles maybe I mean when Jesus has told it says in the first Corinthians 1525 Jesus will

continue as he is now to reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet well putting his

enemies under his feet seems to mean subjecting them okay and I would take the term trampled

under foot of the Gentiles to be silly they're subjected by the Gentiles but I mean I don't have an

axe to grind about it if you want to take it in other words that's not an axe to grind I just

think that I just think that's the position that you're taking I understand the method that you're

describing I've got your book I agree with it completely I just don't understand why you're

taking the time to the Gentiles and you're extending it beyond the time that it appears Jesus is

talking about it seems like you're giving your phrase what it appears to you Christmas your phrase

what it appears to you says all right the main word there is appears and the question appears to

obviously to you it appears that he's talking about the three and a half years it could be it

appears to me otherwise but is there anything at stake here I can't even imagine why I think there is

okay I think there is because there are people who because of the explanation that you just gave

who who said well you know what you're making my argument for me I mean obviously this church

is the time of the Gentiles and Jerusalem is going to be trodden down physical Jerusalem why would Paul be

talking about physical Jerusalem all the way into the end of the church age yeah Paul is you're

talking about what Jesus said one statement is what Jesus was talking about okay yeah well do they

disagree with one another well the questions are they talking about the same thing I think they are

it sounds like maybe you think okay so let me ask you this so the statement israel has been

partially blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in you're saying that's 70 AD when the

fullness of the Gentiles comes in that that's the three and a half years the Gentiles are come in

you mean like to invade well isn't the fullness of the Gentiles only mentioned in three different

places only one person about here Luke it's well it's mentioned in Romans 11 25 it's mentioned in

in Luke 21-24 it's mentioned in Revelation no it's not mentioned in Revelation no the expression

the fullness of the Gentiles only occurs in Romans 11 25 nowhere else there are different phrases

in Revelation 11-2 revelations 11-2 says it's given it to the Gentiles and the Holy

city shall they tread under for 42 or not right it doesn't say the fullness of the Gentiles does it

you you think these are talking about different prophets well they may be talking about the same

topic what I'm saying is they're not saying the same thing about the phrase only appears once

you're telling me it appears more times in it but the two other cases you gave don't say it they

don't use that phrase no Luke 21-21 listen we're getting into the weeds here we're getting into the

weeds here I can explain every one of those verses to to my satisfaction you can listen to my

lectures about them and hear what I say if that doesn't explain it to your satisfaction that's

okay you're not obligated to be satisfied with my answers but you are not obligated either to

dominate the whole program till the end of the show once we've already made my points a few times

there's like more people waiting and very little time I appreciate your call but I'm and I'm sorry

you're not satisfied with my answer I don't hear you giving a more satisfying answer but if it

satisfies you more power do you really I don't object Mike and Boston Massachusetts welcome oh yes how

you doing I'm actually from San Antonio Texas I'm on my way back there I'm in Boston now I

gotta get to the airport good question I was speaking to somebody that was talking about giving

and tibing and so forth and I was talking about tibing is that what today is the oh it's the

old testament but I look to see where tibing actually began before the law with Abraham Isaac and

Jacob and I just want to get your thoughts on me giving I have to say about grace giving I just

want to get your thoughts about that I'm on my way to the airport now so if I can take your answer

off the end I'd be appreciated thank you so much that'd be fun thank you Mike thanks for your call

well I agree with the people you were talking to I believe that tibing as a practice

belong to the law it was it was instituted in order to support the Levites the tibes was given to

the Levites then they gave a tie of that to the priests and this was how the staff of the temple

in the tabernacle were supported there is no command to give ties in the New Testament and there

was no command to give ties previous to that either now when people say well tibing was practiced

before the law what they're referring to is the fact that it says in Genesis chapter 14 that

Abraham gave a tithe that is a tithe of all the spoils of battle to Melchizedek okay but no one

told him to that we know if we don't read that he and this was a tibing was that you give a tithe

of your the produce of your land and the money you earn what what Abraham tithe to Melchizedek

was just the spoils of battle that wasn't earned by him it's just you know it's spoils and he

he honored Melchizedek by giving him a tithe of it we don't read that Abraham ever gave a tithe

of anything to God again and there certainly was no command he was under to do so this is just a

statement of something he did now why did he choose 10 percent maybe because in those days 10

percent was a fairly typical tax that people paid to their kings secularly I know that when the

children of Israel asked for a king and for Samuel 8 God told Samuel to tell him well he's

going to take 10 percent of your stuff you know in others that was apparently the tax you would

pay to a king in those days and Abraham might have given Melchizedek that amount for that reason

now the other case was Jacob after he saw the ladder and so forth said I'm going to if you

bless me give me home safe and so forth I'm going to give a tenth of all my you know profits to you

once again there's no evidence he was commanded anywhere to do that there's no evidence he did that

on a regular basis what he did do is he spent 20 years after that working for his uncle Laban

getting rich and then when he came back to the promised years 20 years later he did go to Bethel

and he offered he kept his down and gave 10 percent of his sheep as a sacrifice to God apparently

so he fulfilled that promise but we don't read that he kept doing that on a regular basis he might

have the point is there is no command to tithe anywhere prior to the giving of the law there's a

couple of cases hundreds of years before Moses where a couple of holy men did give God 10 percent

of something but we don't read of them practicing that or being told to do that that's something they

voluntarily offered so yeah that we can't say the tithing law existed before before it was given

in the law of Moses and in the New Testament it's not given at all it's part of the old covenant so

I believe you said grace giving you know that I think grace giving is the only kind of giving

that the New Testament knows that as you give to the poor you give to support the gospel you give

to charities that that support the kingdom of God and you do so according to the grace that

God's given you not a particular percentage you give it as you see the need or as you feel moved

by God to do it so that's that's how I understand I don't see it as a tithe obligation there thank you

for your call I wonder if we have time probably not usually I say hey can you can you use a minute

and usually people can't we have more people waiting but I'm looking at a clock how let me try it

if you can give me a question and a short one I'll I'll be glad to take it Gary and Pike so

Kentucky do you have a short question yes I was just one I listen to your uh

verse by verse on Zechariah 14 and I had a question about uh in verse 8 it

mentions the uh fountain being opened yeah and I was wondering about the Holy about the Holy

Spirit being poured out in acts yes versus the Old Testament people that had the Holy Spirit you

can well Zechariah is actually talking about the output of the spirit in acts um he's talking about

you know the spirit you're right because Jesus said in in John 7 27 through 29 that whoever believes

in me as the scripture has said out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water well as the

scripture the Old Testament said were they say that it doesn't say that exact thing but the term

living waters is from one verse and that's in Zechariah 14 8 where Jerusalem is the people of God

and living waters are flowing out of them he's the Jerusalem there is obviously the spiritual

Jerusalem because he said whoever believes in me out of him will flow rivers of living water so

it's the believing community and the uh you know the book of acts the tenacost and so forth

and the and the period of the church since then I believe all are a fulfillment of that

that compared John 7 27 through 29 with that verse and you'll see what I'm talking about there

I'm out of time thanks for listening the narrow path is listed or supported our website is

the narrow path.com you can donate from there if you wish or take stuff for free have a good evening