20250130

SPEAKER 1 : 0:01

Thank you.

SPEAKER 01 : 0:36

Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour each weekday afternoon taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or anything related thereto, we'd be glad to talk to you about those things if you call in. If you don't see it the same way as the host and you want a balanced comment, then you're welcome to do that as well. Right now, most of our lines are full. It looks like we have maybe one line open. If you want to call, the number is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. Okay, our first caller today is Cheryl calling from Lincoln, California. Cheryl, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

SPEAKER 05 : 1:24

Thank you. I have a question about Jeremiah 1. verses 4 and 5, and I listened to your verse-by-verse teaching on it and saw your insight into that verse, but I wondered about something that struck me when I was reading it. When it says, the word of the Lord came to me saying, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. And you explained how God... knew his nature before he was even born and so forth. But what struck me about it was, could this be applied to all of us in general, or is it being too general in saying that God forms each of us, he knows us, and he has a purpose for us as we are in our mother's womb, basically? I'm inclined... And I'm coming from a... Oh, go ahead.

SPEAKER 01 : 2:24

I'm inclined to the view that God has a purpose in mind for each person before they're born. That doesn't mean he determines what they will do, because actually you can be appointed to something and not do it, unfortunately. There are people who God calls and they say no. Jonah initially did that. Of course, God kind of strong-armed him into turning around and doing the right thing. But it's evident that people can say no to God. about their calling. And Jeremiah, on occasion, wanted to. In fact, he said at one time, I'm not going to speak anymore, but they said the word of the Lord was in me like a fire. I couldn't hold it in. But God, I think, has something in mind for everybody when they're born. They just don't show up and God says, well, I'll try to think of something for you to do. Now, not all of us are called to be prophets in that sense, in the sense that Jeremiah was. Or at least At least not all Jews were. I mean, very relatively few Jews were prophets. We might say that all Christians are prophets in one respect, insofar as we take the word prophet in the most broad sense of someone who speaks for God through the spirit of prophecy, because all of us have the spirit of prophecy. All of us have the Holy Spirit, which was not true in the Old Testament. Not everyone had the Holy Spirit. Jeremiah did. God did. you know, put the Spirit upon him and on others who are called to be prophets. And so he was unusual among the Jews in that respect. But for us, all Christians have the Holy Spirit, which is the same Spirit of prophecy. Now, Paul said there's different gifts, and to some are given the gift of prophecy, and others have other gifts. So there's a sense in which all of us have the potential to speak truth, you know, for God through the Holy Spirit. And maybe at various times, maybe we all do it from time to time, but not everyone has the office of a prophet like Jeremiah did. So what God called Jeremiah to do wouldn't necessarily be something that is, you know, something that everybody was called to do. He had a special ministry, but so do each of us, I think. I think each of us have a special ministry. Now, a lot of Christians, of course, don't have public ministries. They don't teach or preach or prophesy or heal or do things like that publicly. Not all are called to that. But, you know, each one has a ministry to somebody, to the people in his or her life. Certainly a mother or a father has a ministry to their children, and married people who have no children have ministries to each other. But not only that, but also something to contribute to the whole body of Christ. It's just there's quite a variety of gifts, and not all are prophets, Paul said.

SPEAKER 05 : 5:09

So this strikes me as a scripture that could be used in the defense of being pro-life and against abortion, that we're interfering with God's plan and purpose for each person, each of the unborn.

SPEAKER 01 : 5:28

Yeah, I would say so. I would say so. I mean, the fact that God has a plan for Jeremiah to be a prophet before he's ever born... means that if someone had killed his mother while he was in the womb or killed or somehow aborted him, they would have been interfering with the call of God on him. Now, I believe that God has a purpose for everyone who's born. Not everyone finds it. Obviously, being a Christian, being a follower of Christ is part of that purpose, but not everyone finds Christ or receives him. Among those who do receive Christ, not everyone submits or finds or is willing to do whatever it is God has called them to do. That's a shame. Everyone has to answer for that. But, yeah, I think any child that is killed in the womb is a child that God had a plan for, that God had something he wanted to use them for, that he wanted them at the very least to be his servants and children, you know, and he wanted them to serve him in some capacity. Yeah, so I mean, the fact that God has something to say about that before a person is born, he's got a purpose in their life, certainly would be against abortion. So would, you know, Psalm 39, where David says that God formed him in the womb and knew all of his members and so forth before they were formed. Paul also says in Galatians 1 that God called him from his mother's womb, called him from birth. to be a witness so there are numerous places where the Bible talks about God having a purpose for someone before they're born it's obvious that John the Baptist had a purpose before he was born as did Jesus and in the case of John the Baptist we know that the child in the womb leaped for joy upon hearing the greeting from Mary now this is an unborn child who is said specifically to leap for joy and to be filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb So I think this would certainly cancel any kind of theories that children in the womb are not people. Right. Very good.

SPEAKER 05 : 7:36

I was going to bring this up in my women's Bible study, but I didn't know if I was on solid ground to interpret it in that light.

SPEAKER 01 : 7:45

I think so. I think it at least implies that much. Yeah. Might even maybe go further. Yeah. All right. Okay.

SPEAKER 04 : 7:55

Okay, Cheryl. Thank you.

SPEAKER 01 : 7:56

Yeah, thank you for your call. Good talking to you. Okay, let's see. We're going to talk to Karen from Prosser, Washington. Karen, welcome.

SPEAKER 03 : 8:07

Yeah. Hi, Steve. Hi. I'm calling with a question about the thousand-year millennial reign. I studied the Bible by myself independently, and then I stumbled upon John MacArthur talking about about how there would be, I guess, glorified bodies alongside physical bodies, and that they would be giving birth. And, well, it was, I thought it was very crazy sounding, and I just was wondering if you could explain, since you used to teach that way, how does, like, Israel reign, combining the glorified bodies with physical sinful bodies and babies being born? I mean, how... Because it's so crazy to me. How was it explained, and how did the people even accept that? That's really it. I can take it off.

SPEAKER 01 : 9:03

Okay. Okay. Thank you, Karen. Okay. Well, as many of our listeners know, I'm not a premillennialist, as John MacArthur is. And it sounds like Karen is familiar with that, too, and wonders how a premillennialist can think about this subject. The problem here is that the only chapter in the Bible that mentions a thousand years is Revelation 20. And so the question of the millennium, which is a word that means a thousand years, all has to do with what is this chapter talking about. Now, people like John MacArthur and other premillennialists believe that this is talking about a righteous order that will be established on earth when Jesus returns. Part of the reason for saying that is they see in chapter 19 of Revelation what they interpret to be the second coming of Christ, where John sees Christ on a white horse coming and striking the nations with the sword out of his mouth. Now, I think it's not too hard to see that as a prophecy about the second coming of Christ, although it's possible to see it otherwise, too, because there are many historically, who thought that that is a picture of Christ conquering the world through his word, which is what's symbolized by the sword out of his mouth. What comes out of his mouth is his word. And that his word, the gospel, conquers the nations. And so that's how some people understand that. But I think probably more modern people see it as a reference to the second coming of Christ, and that's in chapter 19. And being in chapter 19, that's before chapter 20. So they would say, well, Jesus comes back in chapter 19, therefore chapter 20 is must describe events after he comes back. And so this is, I think, pretty much the main basis for being premillennial about this. And yet it's not a valid argument because just because a vision that John describes in one chapter comes later than a vision that he describes in another chapter does not mean that the events of that vision come later than the events of the previous vision. because different visions focus on different time frames. The visions are not, you can't just read through Revelation and get just a chronological narrative. I mean, you could try. But, for example, I believe we see the second coming of Christ at the end of chapter 11, where the seventh trumpet sounds, and the dead are judged, and all that stuff. That strikes me as the second coming of Christ. And yet, chapter 12, the next chapter, describes the birth of Christ again. So it's obvious that you can't just say, well, this chapter came after that chapter, so the events in this chapter followed that chapter. Well, that would have to be decided by internal factors in each chapter. You know, when was the fulfillment of this? When's the fulfillment of that? Are they sequential? Maybe not. Daniel's that way, too. Daniel has quite a lot of different visions, and they don't always follow each other chronologically. some of them are parallel to each other. So, in other words, you can't just say, well, chapter 20 has to happen after Jesus comes back because chapter 20 comes after chapter 19. And somebody interprets chapter 19 as being about the second coming of Christ. Well, of course, not everyone even interprets chapter 19 that way, but even giving them that as a starting point for the sake of argument, it doesn't tell us anything about the chronology of the events between chapters 19 and 20. So, So they're stuck with that. They believe that chapter 20 must be after the second coming of Christ. Now, of course, in chapter 20, you find Christ's saints reigning with him for a thousand years, but then Satan is loose for a while, and he manages to draw lots of people into a rebellion against God. The Bible says they come under Satan's direction against the beloved city, and they are as numerous as the sand of the sea, and they're from all the nations. So this is a huge rebellion. rebellion against God at the end of this so-called thousand years, which raises questions. Why would this be so? If Jesus came back, why would there still be enemies of Christ in such great numbers on the planet after that, especially after he's reigned for a thousand years? How does that work? I mean, why would that happen? And we've got unregenerate people there, I guess. And they would say, yeah, well, that's true. And they would sometimes link this with Isaiah 65, where it appears to talk about people being born and dying again. which they take to be in the millennium. Now, I don't take it that way, but that's another story. The point is they do believe, the premillennials believe, that when Jesus comes back, not all of the wicked will be wiped out, but some will go into the millennium to be subject to Christ and ruled over him with a rod of iron. They emphasize this. The Bible says in Psalm 2, he'll reign with a rod of iron, which they would say means these people are forcibly subjected to Christ, though they have no heart for it. For a thousand years, apparently many generations of people, born, grew up, died in this thousand years, but they had to obey Christ, though they didn't want to. So when Satan is loosed, he's able to rally them in rebellion. Now, what doesn't seem to be very sensible, I always had trouble with this when I was a premillennialist myself. I thought, so here's all these people who are not, I mean, these are mortal people. But Christians will have been alive for a thousand years at this time in immortal bodies. Because if Jesus comes back at the beginning of the millennium, well, the Bible says we're going to be raised immortal. We're going to be raised in glorious bodies, indestructible in power. So here we have a picture in the premillennial scene of a world populated by a bunch of mortal sinners for a thousand years. And believers reigning in Jerusalem with Jesus in immortal bodies. And somehow the devil, when he's loose, is scary. How is this scary? We got Jesus with us there in Jerusalem, supposedly. And we're immortal and the enemies are not. I don't really see how this becomes a crisis. And this is something that I never did quite understand as a premillennialist. Of course, I'm no longer a premillennialist, not because of that. but because of Scripture itself, because Peter was not a premillennialist, as he makes very clear in 2 Peter 3, verses 10 through 13. Paul was not a premillennialist, as he makes very clear in 2 Peter 8, verses 19 through probably 22 or so. I'm not looking at it yet. Let's see here. It's going to be 19 through 23. And So neither Paul nor Peter knew anything about a future millennium. In fact, nobody did. Jesus never mentioned one. Jesus said when he comes back, he's going to raise everyone from the dead. Like the sheep and the goats, they'll be separated, and some will go to eternal life, some to eternal damnation. No one's going to go to a thousand-year reign. So this whole idea of a millennium, there's not a word about it from Jesus or the apostles until you get to the last chapter almost, the second to the last, third to the last chapter of the whole Bible in Revelation 20. And that is interpreted in such a way by premillennialists so as to bring up all these weird scenarios that you bring up. But there's no reason to, because historically the church has seen the millennium in chapter 20 as a symbol, a symbolic reference to the present age between the first and second coming of Christ. It's all very symbolic. But what in Revelation isn't? And so this is where we go. Sister, I'm with you on this. You say it seems like a kind of crazy scenario. I do think that the premillennial position, although it starts with a fairly rational way, like, okay, we have the second coming of Jesus in chapter 19, so we've got the millennium in chapter 20. I mean, that's a kind of a rational way of thinking, although it's not a necessary way of thinking, but it's not irrational. But then it leads you into all kinds of irrational presuppositions that are totally unnecessary and which neither Paul nor Peter nor any of the New Testament writers or Jesus, for all we know, had any concept of because you don't have any millennium in the Bible except in Revelation 20. And it'd be a strange thing if that's a major truth of eschatology and God never mentioned it anywhere. except you've got to get almost to the end of the Bible. Three chapters from the end, you finally get this major doctrine thrown in here. And yet I don't see any reason to see it that way. There's better ways to understand it. I can't get into it right now, but I think you know what I think. I do have lectures on it at our website, which are free for anyone to listen to at thenarrowpath.com. I appreciate your call. Let's talk next to Slavic from Spartanburg, South Carolina. Hi, Slavic. Welcome. Okay, Slavik's not there. Russell from Fort Worth, Texas. Welcome.

SPEAKER 02 : 18:25

Hello, Steve. Hi. My question today is 1 Peter 3 and verse 19, where he talks about Jesus goes to sin to preach to the spirits in prison. If you could elaborate on that, and I'd like to know, is that the same event that Peter mentions a few verses later in chapter 4, verse 6? Are those the same event?

SPEAKER 01 : 18:50

The gospel is preached to the dead? Those who are dead? Yeah. Well, I don't think so. Well, okay, here's the thing. In 1 Peter chapter 3, verse 19, it says that Jesus... Through the spirit, in verse 20, through his spirit he preached to the spirits in prison, which previously had been disobedient to God in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared. Now, the people that he preached to through his spirit are the people who were disobedient in the days of Noah while the ark was prepared. Well, when were they preached to? Now, some people think that Peter is saying, that when Jesus died, he went down to Hades and found these people and preached to them. But what he preached to them is a mystery. Did he preach the gospel to them so they got a second chance to be saved? And if so, why only them? Why only the people who were rebellious during the time that the flood was coming? Why not all the sinners from all history? There's been a lot more sinners than them. So why did he preach to those people specifically, and what did he preach? The Bible tells us nothing about it. But I would point out that Peter doesn't say that this preaching went on while Jesus was dead in the grave. A lot of people assume that this means that Jesus died and went down into Hades and preached to these spirits in prison while he was there and then came back three days later to life again. Well, you know, maybe he did, but that's not necessarily what Peter said. Peter makes no mention of Jesus doing this in the three days that he was in the grave. He doesn't even mention it. those, or that as an activity of that period. All he says there is that Jesus, through his Spirit, preached to the disobedient ones in the days of Noah. Now, through what means did he preach through his Spirit? Well, it's interesting that two chapters earlier in 1 Peter 1, verses 10-12, Peter says that the prophets of the Old Testament spoke through the Spirit of Christ. Okay, so the Spirit of Christ preached in the Old Testament through the Old Testament prophets. Then two chapters later, it says the Spirit of Christ preached to the people who were in rebellion while the ark was being prepared. Is it not probable that since Peter has already said that the Old Testament prophets preached through the Spirit of Christ, and now he says, and the people before the flood were preached to through the Spirit of Christ, that he would be thinking of Noah being the one preaching to them? through the Spirit of Christ, if the Old Testament prophets are said to have spoken through the Spirit of Christ, it's not a stretch to assume that Peter is referring to Noah preaching to them while he was preparing the ark. Now, we don't actually have any reference anywhere in the Bible to Noah being a preacher, at least not in the Old Testament. But we do in the New Testament in 2 Peter 2, which says that Peter was a preacher of righteousness. Now that's something Peter apparently got somewhere we don't know where, because it's not mentioned in the Old Testament that Noah did any preaching at all. He just built an ark and put his family on it. Noah as a preacher is only known to us from Peter's writings. 2 Peter chapter 2 mentions Noah as a preacher of righteousness. But since Peter has that in his mental furniture, that Noah was a preacher of righteousness, Might it not be probable that that's what he's referring to in 1 Peter 3 when he says that Jesus, through his Spirit, preached to the people who were disobedient in the days of Noah? That is to say, Noah's preaching inspired by the Spirit of Christ did so. Now, the biggest problem with that, of course, is the statement that he preached to the spirits in prison. And obviously, when Noah was preparing the ark, those people that Noah may have preached to were not spirits in prison. No, but they are now. So, I mean, it's entirely possible what Peter's saying is that those spirits, those lost spirits, those damned spirits who were killed in the flood because of the rebellion, they had been preached to when they were alive. Today, their spirit's in prison. and Christ preached to those spirits in prison. And spirits in prison would then mean who are now in prison. And you asked about 1 Peter 4, 6, which also has a similar language. It says, for this reason, in 1 Peter 4, 6, for this reason the gospel is preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit. It's a very strange statement, and different commentators will say different things about it, but to say the gospel is preached to those who are dead, does that mean that it was preached to them in the state of death, that is in Hades? Is it saying that someone went down there, Jesus, or someone preached the gospel to people who at the time were dead, or to people of the past who now are dead? You know, our dead brothers and sisters, they were preached to also, but not when they're dead. They were preached to when they're alive. I think that both statements, the one about Noah and the one about the gospel being preached to the dead, could be understood to mean that the audience of this preaching were alive at the time they were preached to. Today, we refer to them as the dead because they died subsequently. Today their spirits are in prison in Hades, but they weren't at the time. And that's kind of how I'm inclined to see it. Now, what is he saying there in verse 4-6? He says, for this reason the gospel is preached also to those who are dead. I think he may be referring to martyrs, Christian martyrs who are now dead, but they had opportunity to hear the gospel before, so that, he says, though they might be judged according to men in the flesh, that is, they were killed, martyred by men, they would nonetheless live according to God in the spirit. So God made sure that these people who were faithful unto death had a chance to hear the gospel so that they, even though they're going to be martyred, they would still have eternal life. I personally think that's probably what Peter's saying. There are other theories, but no one of the interpretations is particularly clear from the passage. So that's how I would interpret those statements.

SPEAKER 02 : 25:26

Yeah, okay. Well, thank you very much for that.

SPEAKER 01 : 25:29

All right, Russell. Thanks for your call. Okay, we're going to talk next to, let's see who's been there longest. It's going to be Brian from Whittier, California. Brian, welcome.

SPEAKER 08 : 25:41

Hi, Steve. How are you doing? Good, thanks. Good. My question is, I've got a quick question. There's some people that question the pastor position because the same Greek word is translated in the New Testament, elder. There's not a specific Greek word for pastor.

SPEAKER 01 : 26:00

Hang on, hang on, hang on. We've got a hard break coming up. I'm going to put you on hold. I'll come back to you so you figure out exactly how you want to word that question, and I'll be right back. So we want to be able to give you plenty of time. Right now we're taking a break, but we have another half hour coming up. You're listening to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. And we are a listener-supported broadcast. We've been doing this since 1997. If you do the math, that's like 28 years now daily. And we do it strictly without sponsors and without selling anything. We're just listener-supported. If you'd like to help us stay on the air, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. You can also donate from the website. Everything at the website is free, and that's a lot of stuff. That's at thenarrowpath.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds, so don't go away.

SPEAKER 07 : 27:00

Is the Great Tribulation about to begin? Are we seeing the fulfillment of biblical prophecy unfolding before our very eyes? In the series, When Shall These Things Be?, Steve Gregg answers these and many other intriguing questions. The lecture series entitled, When Shall These Things Be?, can be downloaded in MP3 format without charge from our website, thenarrowpath.com.

SPEAKER 01 : 27:36

Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we're live for another half hour, taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, we'd be glad to hear from you. If you have a different viewpoint from the host, we'd be glad to hear from you, too, if you want to share it. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. We were just about to talk to Brian in Whittier, California, and the break just kind of leaped upon us. We had to discontinue, but not forever. We're back. Brian, you stayed with us. Go ahead with your question.

SPEAKER 08 : 28:19

My question was on a senior pastor position or pastor position. There are people who question that position because the Greek word, the same word translated pastor and elder, the one Greek word. So what do you think of all that, any of that?

SPEAKER 01 : 28:39

Okay. Well, the Greek word for pastor is poimen, which means shepherd. It's the ordinary word for a shepherd, like the shepherds that were watching their sheep on the hills of Bethlehem and the angels appeared to them and told them Jesus was born. That's the same word, a shepherd, poimen. And it's used figuratively for certain religious leaders, especially, of course, Jesus is called the good poimen, the good shepherd. And then leaders in the churches are sometimes referred to as shepherds or poimen. But they are also called elders. Now, it's a different Greek word, but the two are used interchangeably. The people who are called poignant are also called presbyteroi. Presbyteros is singular for an elder. The word episkopos is singular for what's usually called a bishop, but it actually literally means an overseer. All three of these words are used interchangeably in the Bible. The episkopoi, that is the overseers. are the same as the presbytery, which is the elders, which are the same as the poignant, which are the shepherds. So all those terms are used interchangeably. We do not actually have any instance in the Bible that mentions a church having an individual leader, like a pastor or a senior pastor, or a single elder or bishop, though in the early church, the second century, we do have people like Ignatius talking about a singular bishop or episkopos, you know, in a church. But Paul and his companions apparently simply appointed elders, which were also called bishops or overseers, in every church, plural elders, in every singular church. James even said, his name was sick, let him call for the elders, plural, of the church, singular. The church had elders. In eldership, Paul told Timothy that he should stir up the gift that was in him by the laying on of the eldership, the hands, the hands of the eldership. Paul called for the elders of Ephesus in Acts chapter 20 and gave them some exhortation. At one point he said to the elders, he said, Take heed to yourselves and to the church of God, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, that's episcope, They're already presbytery, elders from Ephesus. Now they're called episcope. And he says that you shepherd the church of God, which is the word for poimen, the Greek form of shepherd. So, you know, the same people are the elders, the overseers, and the shepherds. That was Paul. Peter does the same thing in 1 Peter chapter 5. He says the elders who are among you I exhort. He says he also is an elder. He says that you shepherd the church of God. So that's the verb form of poimen. over which God has made you overseers. So, again, overseers is episcopate. So these three words are used of the same people and never differentiated in the Bible from each other, which means that the only form of church government in the local church we have any witness for in Scripture is that a local congregation is overseen by a group of men who are the pastors, that is, the shepherds of the flock. They are the overseers, and they are the elders. Now, of course, the church government and even the whole concept of a local church evolved. I mean, what we call a local church today has no parallel in Scripture because in Scripture, every Christian in a town was in the same local church. But today, for example, the town I live in probably has 100 or 200 local churches today. And they don't even have any association with each other. They have different denominations and different loyalties and different networks and so forth. So that whereas in the New Testament, all the Christians in Temecula, California, would be one church, the local church of Temecula. However, our modern churches don't recognize that. God does, but the modern churches don't, which means that we have a concept of local church that has no parallel in Scripture today. That is a competing concept. congregations that really are not answerable to each other, in many respects are competing with each other, don't believe the same things as each other, don't walk together, and that is simply a corruption of the way that Christ and the apostles set things up. But we have to live with it. I mean, that's how things are. We have to fellowship somewhere, and I don't know of any place where you can go and all the Christians in the same town are in the same building, so... Unfortunately, we sometimes have to live with a corrupted form, though we don't have to necessarily perpetuate it. Now, what do I think about there being a senior pastor? Well, from what I've said, you can understand that I don't believe that the idea of a senior pastor has any precedent in Scripture. On the other hand, I believe that Christ can still be the head of a church whose governmental structure is set up differently than it would be in the first century. I if someone says, you know, what kind of what form of church leadership do you approve of? I approve of Jesus being the head of the church. The head of every man is Christ, Paul said in First Corinthians one, three. And so, I mean, Christ is the head of the church. Different churches have different forms of church government. Most of them do have senior pastors. Some of them are run by elderships. Some are run by the congregation. The so-called congregational form of government is a democratic form of government the church is run by. So you've got the Episcopal form, you've got the Presbyterian form, and you've got the Congregational. congregational form, which are the main three forms of church government. I would say there'd be another form, too, which we see in the book of Acts, but it's not supposed to be permanently that way. That would be the apostolic form. That is where the apostle who started the church is still overseeing it until he moves on to start another one, like Paul did or Peter. So as long as the apostle who started the church is there, he typically kind of is the guiding light of the group But in the Bible, these apostles would appoint elders, and the apostles would move on and start another church, and the elders would oversee it. But I think a lot of churches today have been planted by kind of apostolic type of men. I don't call them apostles because I'm not sure there are apostles, but that apostolic style of government has not died off. And in a time where there's this many denominations, it's hard to say that it's invalid. But the main point is not whether you've got a senior pastor or an eldership or something like that. I do believe an eldership has more biblical basis than a senior pastor. But the main concern is whether Jesus' headship matters. is honored in the church. If you have a senior pastor, it's entirely possible that he's a humble man. He sees himself as an under-shepherd who is seeking the mind of God. He might be the only mature man in the church if it's a small enough church. And, you know, he might have no choice but to be the leader of the church. But the church could still follow the headship of Jesus if the pastor is the right kind of fellow. Likewise with elders or any other kind of church leadership. as long as Christ's headship is really the defining governance of the church, then I'm not highly critical of any form of church government. But if there's any church government, I don't care what kind it is, elders, pastors, whatever, bishops, any form of church government that kind of cancels out Christ's headship so that the congregation is somehow supposed to follow the leader like a cult leader, That's corrupt. That's not good. Because then the head of every man is not viewed to be Christ. The head of every man is the local guy who holds the job of leading the church. And that's not a good arrangement. It's certainly not biblical. We have a case like that in the Bible, but it's a corrupt one. It's 3 John. John writes to rebuke, in a sense, Diotrephes, who was a leader in the church who loved to have the preeminence But he even rejected apostolic authority. And John said he kicks us out of the church and the people we send he kicks out. So we have a very bad church leader in 3 John named Diotrephes. And we've had plenty of church leaders like him since. And I don't care what form of church government you have, if the leaders love to have the preeminence, then you've got a pagan organization here you better find. you know, someone who's going to honor the headship of Christ. Otherwise, you're not really in what we could legitimately call a church at all. All right. I appreciate your call, brother. We'll talk next to Slavik, who was not with us when we put him on last time. Maybe he's here this time. Slavik, welcome. Hey, Steve.

SPEAKER 06 : 37:58

Hi. Yes, I'm here. Hi.

SPEAKER 01 : 38:00

Go ahead.

SPEAKER 06 : 38:01

I guess they're trying to charm, huh?

SPEAKER 02 : 38:03

Yeah.

SPEAKER 06 : 38:04

So... So first I want to say real quick that I was surprised to hear Ryan from Spartanburg, another caller from Spartanburg, who's listening to you. So that's nice to hear.

SPEAKER 01 : 38:16

Yeah, I know. I knew there was another person from Spartanburg, South Carolina. I'd never even heard of the town before. So I thought it might be a friend of yours, but he's not. He's a stranger to you?

SPEAKER 06 : 38:25

Nope.

SPEAKER 01 : 38:26

Well, that's interesting.

SPEAKER 06 : 38:27

Yeah, he's a stranger. But, yeah, I wrote in the comments of the YouTube channel, if he's listening – No, I wrote to him. I'm like, hey, contact me. You know, maybe we should meet up and talk or whatever. But anyway, my question today is on the Judgment Day, I was wondering if you, what your thoughts was on why God has appointed a day, you know, and I don't know what you believe about the Judgment. Is it going to be like a public where everyone is standing, you know, before the throne, you know, like it says in Revelation, or? And if it is, why is it public? Is there something about the Judgment Day that needs to be public? I've heard someone say that in order for justice to be done, it has to be seen. What do you think about that?

SPEAKER 01 : 39:15

Well, we're not told an awful lot of detail about that. If you've seen Jack Chick's tracks, you'll get this picture of a big movie theater where everybody in the world is watching your movie from beginning to end. And Jack Chick, I don't care for Jack Chick's tracts that much, but I used to like him when I was a kid. But, you know, he based that on, you know, every secret thing will be, everything done is secret. We shout it from the rooftops, you know, there's no thing secret that will not be made known. Those kind of scriptures. Now, I think that there's a lot of statements about the judgment that could be hyperbolic, for example. I don't know that everything you do will be shattered from rooftops. I don't know that everyone's going to be standing around watching, as in a theater, the screening of your life. We'd see an awful lot of unidentifying stuff if every person's life was shown just like that. I mean, there's stuff that would be pornographic. I don't think we're going to have that in heaven. I think that what Jesus is saying, you're not going to get away with anything. When Jesus said, every idle word a man shall speak, he'll give account of it in the day of judgment. That means every careless word. Are we really going to sit and listen to every unedifying thing that anyone ever said? We're all going to hear it. I don't know if that's intended to be taken as literal or if it's a hyperbole. Anything you say can be used against you. We don't have enough of consistent descriptions of the judgment to know exactly. Of course, we have very symbolic descriptions like the story of the sheep and the goats, where even sheep and goats are symbols of people. In Matthew 25, 31 through 46 says, It does sound that, you know, apart from the sheep and goats part, the rest of it could be literal. You know, Jesus is going to come. He's going to separate everyone into two groups, and one group are the lost and one group are the saved. And he's going to, you know, rebuke the lost and send them off to what's described there as Ionius punishment or eternal punishment in English. And then the other group, we're going to go into eternal life because he's going to commend them Now, that's, of course, very abbreviated, I'm sure. But in Revelation 20, we have another picture of the judgment, but it's not very different. In fact, it's less detail. It just says that, you know, God's going to empty the graves and all the sea are going to give up the dead and they're all going to stand before God and the books will be opened and people will be judged by the things written in the books and those who are not found in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. And then we find the rest going into the New Jerusalem in the following chapter. So, We don't have a lot of detail given. I mean, some statements like every idle word a man speaks or everything you do secretly will be revealed, those things might be literal. I don't know if they are or not. They strike me as the kind of things that might be hyperbole, but, you know, we don't have very many details. At least they're not all the same about the final judgment. Because different parables and different passing statements and apocalyptic images are employed. I mean, when he talks about, you know, pulling the fish net to shore and the good fish are set aside in a good barrel and baskets and the bad ones are thrown into a furnace of fire. Or the same thing with wheat and chaff. There's a judgment day in all these parables. But there's not much detail given. You know, they're sorted out. is basically what we're told, and some go a good place and some go a bad place. So I'm not going to speculate over much. I do believe there is a day of judgment. Whether it will last longer than a 24-hour day, I don't know, because when Jesus comes, the heavens and the earth vanish away, the sun and the moon and stars are gone. I'm not sure how you'd even measure a day after that. I don't know if it would be a 24-hour day or what, but however long it takes. Now, there are a few people who, there's a mysterious 35 days alluded to, I think it's 35 or 45 days, I think it's 45 days actually, at the end of Daniel 12, and we're not told what that period is, and I've heard some people say, That's how long it's going to take for God to judge the world. It's going to be judging for 45 days. I think, wait a minute. Now, why would it take 45 days? And if it took – I mean, if God is restricted by actual time, is he really going to get it all in in 45 days? I mean, you've got gazillions and billions of people, their whole lives under review – You know, in 45 days you're going to cover 10 billion lives? Maybe. But if it takes that long, why wouldn't it take longer? And if God's not, you know, stuck in time, then how would it be any number? Why would it take 45 days? Why not just do it instantly? We are not told a lot of this because we don't understand very much about the order that is going to be inaugurated when Jesus returns. So the most we know, the most I know, maybe someone knows more than I do, but the most I know is that there will be a judgment. And many times we're told everyone will be judged according to his works. We'll be judged by the things that were done in our bodies, the Bible says, multiple times. It says that. And that's what Jesus said. That's what Paul said. That's what Peter said in 1 Peter. chapter 1 and verse 17. It says that in Revelation 20. All the references in the Bible to the judgment say we'll be judged by our works. Now, of course, our works, if you're saved, you know, the evil works we've done have been covered by Christ. But we've still done works that will merit some kind of response. And Jesus talked about some servants that were faithful with a few things, and he makes them rule over five cities or ten cities in different places. So there's different rewards. Even for those who are not lost, there will be a judgment where our rewards are determined by our works, and the wicked will be shown for what they are by their works also. So that's about all I really know about this subject because the Bible doesn't say more than that, although I'm sure some people have written book-length treatments of the subject. All right, let's talk to Barbara from Detroit, Michigan. Barbara, welcome.

SPEAKER 04 : 46:10

Oh, hi, Steve. Now, I don't believe that once saved, always saved, and people use that scripture about the seal. Are there some more scriptures that will make people have this wishful thinking Once saved, always saved.

SPEAKER 01 : 46:27

Well, the reference to the seal that you're talking about is when Paul says in Ephesians that we've been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise in Ephesians 1. And I agree with you. I don't think this has anything to do with once saved, always saved. To say we have the seal of the Holy Spirit means that we have the, well, if a document had a king's seal on it or an official seal on it, then it was authentic. You know, it meant that it couldn't be mistaken for forgery. And so us having the seal of God on us means we can't be mistaken for the false thing. And what really shows that we're authentic is God's seal upon us, which is his Holy Spirit. The presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives is the proof that we really are his. That's what I think being sealed by the Spirit means. It doesn't mean that we've been sealed shut like a jar of preserves. or like, you know, I've heard people use the imagery of people who work on an engine and say, well, they put a grease seal on there and then, you know, no dust or anything can get in or out. Well, no, we're not, the word seal is not used there, in my opinion, to speak of that kind of a sealing to keep something in or something out. It's talking about the fact that a real Christian does possess the Holy Spirit. And possessing the Holy Spirit is the seal of authenticity. Now, it doesn't say whether you can stop being a Christian and stop having the Holy Spirit or not. The church will always have the Holy Spirit, but not everyone will always be part of the body of Christ if they fall away, just like Jesus said about the vine and the branches. That's the body of Christ we're talking about there. The branches are the members. Christ is the whole organism. He said, if someone abides in me, they'll bear much fruit. If a person doesn't remain in me, they'll be cast forth as a branch. It's possible to be part of the body of Christ, and to possess the life of Christ and the spirit of Christ, and then not to remain in him. You'll be cast out as a branch, and Jesus says you'll be withered and gathered and thrown in the fire. So, I agree with you. I don't think that the seal of the Holy Spirit has anything to do with eternal security. I do think that, I think many people, there's a lot of verses they use, actually. That's all I can say. You want me to, you want to see if there's other verses. We don't have much time. We've got a lot of people waiting, but I have a lecture on this. Let me just tell you where to find that, because there's lots of verses they use, and I talk about all of them in this lecture, which you'll find if you go to thenarrowpath.com. That's our website. Click on the tab that says Topical Lectures, and when you go there, you'll see a set of lectures called The Content of the Gospel. There's a series called The Content of the Gospel. And I think it's maybe the last lecture in that series. It's called something like Eternal Security or The Security of the Believer or something like that. And I go through all those scriptures. And I agree with you. I don't believe that the once saved, always saved is actually a biblical doctrine. But I can't go into all now with so many people waiting and so little time. I appreciate your call, Barbara, but if you want to listen to that lecture, I think it may be helpful to you if you're really curious. Okay, let's talk to Sean in Perryville. Is this Missouri or Massachusetts? I mean, is this Mississippi? Where are you, Sean? Missouri. Missouri, I got you.

SPEAKER 09 : 50:00

My question is in regards to, I believe it's Numbers 20, wherein God punishes Aaron and Moses... for an incident that occurred with the Israelites and they were denied entry into the promised land and I've read over this passage a few times and I'm just not quite understanding the purpose behind it and why the punishment was so harsh for the incident that occurred. I was wondering if you could explain.

SPEAKER 01 : 50:29

Well, this was not so much about Aaron and Miriam. Miriam dies in the first verse and And Aaron also dies before, or had died before that, I think. No, he dies later in the chapter. But the main part of this chapter is not that they died, but that Moses was going to die. It's not too surprising that Miriam and Aaron died. Everybody except Joshua and Caleb of that generation died. They were of the Exodus generation who had provoked God at... at Kadesh Barnea, and God had said, no one of that generation is going to go into the Promised Land except for Joshua and Caleb. Even Moses was not going to go in. So, you know, Miriam and Aaron were part of that generation, and they died off. They lived a long time. They were pretty old. They were like over 100 years old each. So God gave them a good long life, but he didn't let them survive to go into the Promised Land. That was for the younger generation to do. Now Moses... of course, had also disobeyed God. He had been a faithful person for the most part. But he had struck the rock a second time when God told him only to speak to it. And he didn't do the right thing. And God said, well, because of that, you're not going to enter the promised land. But it shouldn't have been any surprise because God had already said earlier that only Joshua and Caleb of that generation would go in. Maybe Moses figured that You know, he'd slip in too. After all, he's a good guy. He didn't rebel. But God said, no, because you did that, you didn't sanctify me before the people, so you're not going in either. Now, to say that's a very severe judgment, it was a very severe disappointment for Moses. But I don't know that he suffered physically anymore. I mean, it was certainly a great heartbreak to him. Of course, Christians and good people have heartbreaks, many, many heartbreaks throughout their lives. I don't think God has to explain any of those to us. I mean, life is disappointing at times, especially if we're really hoping for something and then we find out it's not going to happen. And that was the case with Moses. That was probably the case for Aaron and Miriam, too. But it was exactly what God had said was going to happen. That is, they're all going to die except for the younger generation and a couple of guys who brought back the good reports. So I don't see that as an overly mean thing for God to do, although it is a tremendous disappointment to Moses. But there's certainly no suggestion here that they didn't go to heaven or that they were somehow unsaved. That whole generation that died in the wilderness, they weren't all unsaved. Certainly Moses didn't. was not unsaved when he died. So, you know, if I experience some severe disappointments in this life, and I have, I've had some very severe disappointments, but I end up with Christ forever, you know, I really can't say I've suffered much. And that's pretty much the situation with Moses. He really wanted to go in, and he didn't get to. But he got to go be with God, just like every other person who dies today. in faith so I guess that's the most I can say about it it doesn't really say that Miriam and Aaron were singled out to die before going into the land they were just part of that generation and it was already determined that they were all going to go down before they went into the promised land hey I'm out of time for this show I'm sorry to say I don't like being out of time but that's the way it happens this is Friday so we won't have a show again until Monday appreciate having you guys with us and we'll talk to you again then We are listener-supported. If you'd like to help us pay the radio bills, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can go to the website where everything is free, and you can donate there if you want to, at thenarrowpath.com. Have a good weekend, and let's talk again Monday.