The Narrow Path 6/19

Estimated welcome to the narrowcast radio broadcast my name Steve Greg in your life again for our with a live program for you to call into if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or different viewpoint on the holster you'd like to discuss the number to call is going to be 844-484-5737 and the reserves is going to be is because if you call that right now you get a busy signal. Our lives are full but you will be able to call later in the program just randomly, you may find that a line has opened up. It happens a lot during the program. The number again is 844-484-5737 skews me dance some congestion. I guess I just talked to Brad from coo ski highbred welcome to the narrow path that you're calling I should bring this to take to God about you and your well I have a lot of but not exact because I didn't have time. Look at that. I can tell you the exact book you can find it in any has primary source evident but I 1946% is Windows only. 1946 G.I. loans started in Manhattan but all over the country. But this is so from 46 to 266, approximately 56 there was a proximate removal more than 86,000 loans given to people in lower Manhattan, which even extended to the suburbs and only and less than 100 went to black people. That was before the civil rights right yet a button on the stuff I was talking about Alecto my cold goes all the way up the same type of stuff with FHA loans and many other things goes all the way to 2008 Saul get backed up to you, so to speak Gamache King that I'm talking about instructional thing on talking about is in the FHA loans in the VA loans.

That's truly structural, truly Hispanic, but they're doing it anti-constitutional. Everybody needs that are still doing it and instill government along with private industry see it. Let me just say this to me institutional means it's written into the rules of the institution.

When you have an institution that is run by people the corruption of the individual people as you have a lot to do that. Like when I when Obama was the president and it was found out that the IRS was so not granting 501(c)(3) exemptions to tea party groups that was not written into the law code. It wasn't institutional. It was simply some corrupt individuals in the system exercising their own prejudice and I'm sure been plenty of that and still is to this day, and probably always will be.

When you've got human beings running systems then you can find problems in the systems but the question is whether it's written into the system or whether it's somebody corrupting this is an individual will show you word words written okay redlining everybody sure. I think redline I've heard the term yet that's written writing assistance writing. LA writings damages go all over the place actually and I think it's written in where they redline where black people can white people can live in it was done by government organizations from the Fed all the way down to the county and city jobs at the phone right now you want to you want to talk about where I found it. You may mention that I have my lines. Move along the will, the greatest book is called the intention of the white rate. By the way is this talk you mentioned yesterday, and this book to book 800 pages. It even talks about, Anthony Johnson mentioned Dr. he was by the way, he came here at Lehmann at Dutch Lake ship 29 and 15 Z tells her to go over the heads of people just like you said in the name of the book, the name of the book is what the white what was the white way to the white race and in a two-part series in the Brad my lines of: I've got people waiting time.

Also I write down maybe write it down and then read it to me over there in the future so that we don't have. I have written down some are okay will send me the information called okay okay I appreciate I do appreciate fax so feel free to send them to me all the okay Brad, thank you, Douglas.

Okay Paul from going up one of Mr. Colorado hi Paul, looking to the narrow path I grade are you familiar with the term hyper great sure what the problem with one of the things I'm looking through a preacher from one of the few teaching hyper great.

As you know, they would be things like the gospel to include eternal security that is not the gospel and you lose your celebration because it doesn't depend on a lifestyle or something that we do and that's the question. Of course it doesn't. Our salvation doesn't depend on something we do what we do is a result of salvation, but what salvation does depend on is our faith.

Some insight well you know if you could lose your salvation than you're making salvation based on your works. No were making salvation based on faith. That's all it is now the Bible says were saved by faith. So if a person is of faith are saved if they don't have faith or not. If they have faith.

At one point in their life there saved at that point, the life estate if they abandon their faith in the not same because you can't be said about faith that would that would mean that you could lose one time in the law. Sure, if you abandon your faith. That's called apostasy. The Bible warns against that one of the great consequences of so what I would agree. Hyper grace isn't just the doctrine of eternal security.

Lots of lots of groups that are not into hyper great starter and would believe in eternal security, for example, Calvinists do and I think most Baptists do. And the there's a lot of mainstream denominations that would hold to some form of eternal security. I'm not among them. But but it's a it is a doctrine held by many Christians who are not cultists or something but hyper grace is essentially antinomianism. The ideas that if you said the sinners prayer you got this grace and it doesn't really matter what you do after that, no matter what you do and frankly if you if you get saved when you're five years old, and the list for the Dell and die for the devil are you guys say because frankly, your your behavior has no direct connection to your salvation. Now where the weather error is is behavior does have a connection to your salvation, but it's not the cause of your Salvation is the result of your salvation. Salvation saves you from your sins saves you from your corrupt way saves you from the bondage of this world from the devil and ended and it brings you into slavery to Christ. The Bible is very clear either a slave of sin in which patient are Christian or your slave of Christ which is what being a Christian is now if your slave of Christ. Of course that has impact on the way you live. It doesn't mean you get saved or become a slave of Christ by doing certain good deeds.

You don't become a slave of someone by serving them you serve them because you are the slave and so our salvation is not brought on by our our works, but our works are brought on by our salvation. We are saved by faith. But having been saved. We are different were different than we were and we live differently so if the hyper grace thing seems to not be able to understand that concept.

They seem to think that if well if you're expected to obey Jesus then you're saved by works, no that's absurd.

I was to say that my children were expected after born to to obey me, means that they were they they receive their birth by obeying me that's is as absurd as it seems to concept my children don't become they don't become part of my family by obeying me when they become part of it is their responsibility to obey and and that's how it is when you become a child of God.

You don't become a child of God by doing good works become a child of God by rebirth, something only God can do when you exercise your faith in Christ. But once that's happened here in the family and your years to be an obedient child and the hyper grace is generally on the opposite side of the auto from what's called Lordship salvation Lordship salvation is the truth of the Scripture that, as Paul put it in Romans 593 10 nine Paul said that some if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. So salvation comes.

According to Paul, when you confess that is when you embrace as true. The fact that Jesus is Lord, if somebody is not living for Christ, and they have not embrace the truth that Jesus is Lord.

They may confess with your mouth, but the Paul confession is strictly a matter of the mouth. It's gotta be of the heart as well a false confession is to save anybody. And in Titus chapter 1, Paul talked about people who confess something with her mouth, but there they prove themselves to be insincere by their actions. In Titus one verse 16 pulses they profess to know God, but in works they deny him so it with her mouth and the professor confess that Jesus is Lord.

But if there works are giving the lights. That means they don't really believe it. If they don't obey Christ and they don't believe there his servants because if you will obey the one that you believe your master so true. Salvation comes when we acknowledge Jesus for what he is.

He is nothing less than Lord and so if we don't acknowledge him as Lord. Then we haven't acknowledged as the as is now hyper grace.

People often just say well you just have to accept Jesus as your Savior. While there's no Bible verse advertisement accepting Jesus as your Savior. I give the hundred dollar servers. They find the subsequent argument thousand accept Jesus as your Savior find out about a thousand bucks and I don't have a lot of money but I'm not worried. So as I read the Bible and so they say.

Well, the Bible only requires you to accept Jesus as your Savior. Not as your Lord, absurd.

Paul's the one who said if if you confess Jesus as Lord, you will be saved. Means will be your Savior when you confess him as Lord John John 112 minutes receive them, to them gave he power to become the children of God right would be would be an example of of you that verse in hyper with hyper grace with that of the other way wobbly. That's supportive of you directly but one when it says whoever received him. We have say as plot received him in what capacity you know if I come to your door and say hey I'm on your new master and you turn me away. You didn't receive me. If you receive me means your accepting me as your master and Jesus came and presented himself as the master is the Lord as the Messiah and those who received him as such.

He gave the power to become children of God. Those who don't receive massage like the Jews of his time mostly didn't they didn't get saved because they didn't receive him as their Messiah, Lord. So if something was they will accept Jesus the Messiah. I just don't see him as my Lord let me an absurd thing to say the word Messiah means the anointed king. The word never had any other meaning than that to the Jews, the anointed king, so when you say Messiah only say Christ which is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah.

You're saying Jesus is the anointed king wealth you're saying is your king then not you I say what he is looking but not my king living in his is not saved, if you say yes. He's the king and I live my life acknowledging that he is the king then that's what it is to receive him. It doesn't standing by whenever start accepting him into your heart Elyse I used to quote that one is a Baptist is.

This means, except as many as received him say received him in your heart is receiving him just receiving him in in the capacity that he presents himself and offers himself he offers himself to us as our king and our Lord be receiving. That means you accept this as meaning to ask income in your heart though you do that I'm not nothing that's abandoned gorgeous in the Bible never mentions it's it's when Jesus is your king when the disciples became followers of Jesus. They were fishermen and she said follow me. He was obviously claiming power over them partially follow him unless they recognized that he had the authority to call and that they should leave everything to follow him. They did, they received him, we don't read that of them asking Jesus come into your heart at any point in their lives they received him in the capacity that he was presenting himself.

He is the Lord, follow me, and they did so that's receiving him dominion would that be like a kill many and then the cabinet and Armenian know how many and doesn't really exist. Some people just haven't studied the Calvinism and Armenian country very well. They don't know what the views really say is you can accept both if you accept the first point of Calvinism which is their view of total depravity venued by logical necessity have to accept all five points because you can't understand total depravity in the way that the Calvinists do without also accepting unlimited unconditional election and limited atonement and irresistible grace and perseverance. Thanks for accepting the points Calvinism. The others follow naturally and unavoidably.

Likewise, if you reject anyone, then you rejectable you can't be part Calvinists, part Armenian.

What when people call themselves condominiums. It's mostly a joke really in there. They know there's no such position, but what they mean is they believe in elements of Calvinism and elements of Arminianism will note no true student of those views would ever think for a moment that you could have elements of both RC Sproul devoted Calvinists. Of course, said he said you know what I call a four point Calvinists and Armenian because he said you can't you can't except for the points about one or even three or even frankly, I was even one of them. I think that the Calvinism proceeds on a different set of assumptions and the Bible does and therefore if you accept the Calvinists views you're not accepting any of the Arminian views and I believe that the arm interviews comport more with Scripture so Armenian well know I am an army, but I don't consider myself when I don't use the term Arminian except as a concession, Calvinists would say that anyone who is not a Calvinists is not a minute.

Well, I'm not. I'm not a Calvinists arm they call me Arminian I allow the label, but I'm not a follower of Arminius. I don't agree Arminius and I know what little I have read of Arminius. I don't agree with all so I'm not a follower of Calvin or of Arminian. I Arminius I'm a follower of the Scriptures and as such, my views do not accord with Calvinism and therefore in popular parlance, I would be referred to as an Arminian even though that's not really descriptive title would be you you a quick will go Arminianism and well today, the word Arminian refers to somebody who rejects Calvinism as far as what I would if I wanted to be angle about it. I could say will and Armenian person, someone who follows everything Arminius wrote that's a lot. I'm not a follower of anyone writer in another's life I've read a lot of of AW toes and really appreciate another toes therein. A lot of CS Lewis, Lucian. I'm a Christian, but I would agree with toes or and with Lewis about many things, probably not everything I need to give some other people a chance or thanks for your call.

All right, let's talk to Ryan from Des Moines, Iowa. Ryan welcomes the narrow path taken my call again today got a question on the other requirements for church leadership in first Timothy chapter 3 I know some of this actually came up yesterday but got three points open that you can touch on in the difference between the elder and the deacon when the requirements when you read it seem like there about the same but we know that there were some female deacons believe that concept or the idea of the husband of one woman being more meaning you'll one woman as opposed to more than one woman or generally just being faithful to the wife that you have and not excluding people that aren't married and were maybe remarried for legitimate reasons and then finally there anything to suggest that Greek culture language spoken things in the masculine, because that's just what was normative at the time, but maybe not inclusive similar to the Spanish language today where lots of verbs are in the masculine, but they can describe things that both men and women are doing in groups that make sense. Carson and English language has approximately two until very recently, still does for reasonable people that there are some people touchy so Valley.

We don't always yeah okay sure what the difference in an elder and a deacon is in their function now what what is not supposed to difference between them is their character so almost all of the qualifications for an elder that are listed are character character and reputation reputation in the community and same thing for the deacon say deacons and elders both have to have pretty much the same character but the main difference is in function in the if you read the qualifications for an elder in the qualifications for deacon. The differences the deacon is not said to have to be able to teach the elder has to be able to teach it says and there's no such requirement on deacon and the reason for that is the elder will be a teacher in the church. He might elders might be the only teachers in the church or they might not. There might be other teachers as well who are not elders, but the field at least has to be able to teacher as he's not really qualified to because that's the function of the elder largely of how the function of the deacon is not to teach, but rather to Deke deacon comes from a Greek word dioxin. The switching servant. Now everyone in the church should be a servant of everyone else. But this specifically means that this these are people who provide in a practical service for the church so the elders and ascents are meeting the spiritual needs in the spiritual feeding of the church through teaching the deacons are serving the physical needs and subscriptions are both physical and spiritual beings. They have both spiritual and physical needs. So God has two different kinds of functionaries that are mentioned here. The elders who give spiritual leadership and serve the church that way, and the deacons who provide physical assistance to the physical needs of the church. That's the main difference and as I say the character has to be the same.

And that's why the descriptions of elders and deacons which are most entirely descriptions of a certain kind of character they're the same for both.

But the function of teaching is required of elder and that's why he asked me after teach in the deacons is not now the husband of one wife, does that mean somebody who's only had one wife in a lifetime, or someone only has one wife. Now, or as you I think you mentioned of one woman, because the word husband in the Greek is also the same word for man and the word. One wife is the same word for woman. So to be a man of one woman there. It says in our English version is the husband of one wife and call a man of one woman what he would necessarily be married if he has a woman, but he's got only one woman he's involved is not is not necessarily talking about polygamy being forbidden.

Although I think that would disqualify him to obviously but but it's talking I think about being single-minded, devoted only to one woman, not of multiple women, so he's not a womanizer. He's needs not have affairs.

He does not mistresses is a man who is faithful to his wife. That's what I think now there are those who feel that it should be interpreted that he's only had one woman, in his whole lifetime that would however require that he not be a widower who has remarried in the Bible places no stigma on a widower who remarries there's nothing wrong with the public's very clear but pleasant widower is in a sense, in the same situation as a divorced person who is been divorced against his or her or his own will and and and for whom there is grounds for divorce in the sense that there's marriage is not found in marriage or and then they remarry to have one woman for your whole lifetime is not an ideal that might be.

Could be an ideal but it certainly is not a moral norm. It may be very ideal that you personally have one woman whole active even if his wife dies or his wife leaves him for him to stay single might be very high ideal, but it's not required of Scripture. Now as far as the generic masculine. It is true that in in the Bible in the Greek and in English and in many languages.

When people in general are being talked about, without regard to gender. Sometimes the term men is used which is of course technically a masculine term, but it's also the name of our race. Mankind humanity. So in every culture until the hypersensitive tissue thin-skinned modern culture where people get offended by everything that doesn't sound just the way they want to. It's always been understood. We were normal to speak of groups of people or categories of people without reference to their genders ordered the demographics to just call them men. When the Bible says that Jesus gave himself for all men. It doesn't just mean males. That means humans and no and that's that is true, however, that wouldn't necessarily apply. It seems to me in a case where it says that a man has to be, if you give me an elder has to be the husband of one wife, or man of one woman. Here, the word man is been used in distinction from woman so I would and also asking the head of his home is the manager's house. Well, to show that he could manage Church of God which means again. It's the husband is in view here not a wife and not not a generic human it's specifically target husband Danny take a break here, but I hope we covered your questions well enough. You're listening to the narrow path, we are not done. We have another half hour break at the bottom.

The R sounds like all shows close not admitted for some stations it is, but we have another half hour, don't go away will be taking more because the narrow path is a listener support supportive ministry and so if you'd like to help us down there.

You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 also possible to donate from the website which is the narrow path.com.

I'll be back in 30 seconds.

So don't go away again to nearly half that leads to life, narrow path. Everything in today's media show is over and enjoyed my visit in the narrow path.com find free topical audio teaching blog article teachings and narrow path, we think you for supporting the narrow path that Steve Greg remembered the narrow path.com radio broadcast, Steve, Greg and were live for another half hour were still taking calls for this half-hour.

But our lives are all if you take this number down: if you wish, you may find that life is opened up. The number is 844-484-5737 and our next caller today is Brandon from Edmonds, Washington hi Brandon, welcome to the telling John the day and chapter will nine verse 41 he and the Sanhedrin. I think after he healed a blind man on the Sabbath and he said to them, if you were blind you would not be guilty of it. And now that you claim you can see your guilt remain and asked I went over that part. It kind of brief like that on Genesis where their eyes were opened, and that brought sin into the world and I just never noticed that parallel before pondering it. If you think is interesting.

It said that your stand there because you say you can see what's going on out and out just a weird parallel and there is a relationship between those two things because when Adam however Adam and Eve's sin caused their eyes be opened in the sense that they were the Bible makes it very clear that sin also cause people to blind another sense depends on how you're using the metaphor seeing or being blind. Their eyes were opened to in the sense of the consciousness of sort of right and wrong was awakened that their conscience was activated and therefore they had a perception of right and wrong that they did not have before. Talk about in Genesis course and so sin and gave them awakened conscience. You know when you've never sinned. You don't know your consciences that you just you just don't want the conscience is making itself very unnoticeable. But when you do something wrong. Suddenly your conscience bites and then you know allow that's wrong and now when Jesus was speaking to the Jews in John nine I think what he was saying is that if they had been truly blind in the sense of not having any knowledge of what's really right and wrong in this in the particular sense of who Jesus is. See that there opposing Jesus and and or self blinding. It says in Matthew chapter 13 live close their eyes and stop their ears so they won't hear and see and perceive be saved, summing Jesus or one of the themes of Jesus ministry was that the Jews of his time were self blinded, and because they blinded themselves.

You know if they really had been legitimately blind. They wouldn't be responsible for seeing a sky can talk about moral things and true things if they didn't know the truth that they have no access to the room, a blind man literally blame and has no way of knowing whether the light is red or green you know if you if he walks against a red light.

He has no sin although he's doing something that's against the law. He wouldn't have any knowledge of the is blind. He doesn't color the lightest and the same thing is true morally. If they didn't have any knowledge of right and wrong at all. Well, then the sin they were committing in resisting him would be you know mitigated.

It would not be they would have the same guilt that he saying that you claim to be people who see that as you claim you know what's right and wrong. So you be judged by that claim. And if you do the wrong thing. Use your responsibility.

I think Christ is your sin remains a thing is your responsibility and your guilt for your sin remains something simple blinded scene are connected in indifferent metaphorical ways in the Bible and those two passages run up would be examples though. I think their target different aspects of of saying in blindness thank you all right okay Brandon thanks for your call okay John from Oregon city, Oregon. Welcome to the neuropathic for calling Michael yesterday called the slogan he asked about 15 and you know the place in the New Testament seems to correlate with that. I don't know any place in the New Testament quotes this verse.

There's an awful lot of Old Testament versus in the profits that are not specifically quoted in Scripture, but that is in the New Testament that this kind of verse is addressed in the New Testament. He knows there's there's a lot of passages in the Old Testament that talk about God's restoration after judgment of his people and the New Testament quotes you lots of these passages that are all of one type and tends to apply them to Christ being the salvation comes after or in connection with the judgment of God's people.

He judges Israel and he had he had judged Israel by sending the babbling and so by saying the Messiah you know he was bringing them a chance to be free people and him and is and this is how the New Testament tends to understand this kind of passage. The Old Testament prophets use a lot of different imagery for this concept but I think there always target the same thing. For example, is sometimes compared to the Exodus were God brings them out of Egypt out of captivity or passages that are bring them out of babbling, which is also bringing them out of captivity or other kinds of things like that you read restoring them from the dead is Ezekiel 37 show that I dry bones in captivity. He raises them from the dead and reassembles and gives them life.

These are all images of God. You know, restoring his people from judgment, but these kinds of passages or are frequently quoted, not the one in Hosea that were talked about specifically but they are frequently quoted in the New Testament and the apostles always seem to give the same kind of applications that Israel and the world has come under judgment for sins and God is now bringing restoration to himself through Christ and that's what I understand to be the theme of the Old Testament prophets based on New Testament passages and that's one reason I would interpret this passage that way, although it's not specifically quoted by the New Testament writers… My mind is the same kind of passage and and since they deal with this kind of passage lot. I reasonably they would probably deal with this passage that way there's another thing to and that is Logan I think was trying to suggest perhaps Hosea chapter 5 verses 14 and 15 were maybe about some future restoration of Israel and there's another thing that Jesus said that kinda guides me in deciding those kinds of things in Luke chapter 21 where Jesus predicted that the temple would be destroyed.

Something that of course happened 40 years after predicted the disciples asked him when would that be and when with us. What would the science be.

That was about to happen and as part of his answer. He tells them in verse 20 is Luke 2120 but when you see Jerusalem described by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Nahid predicted the destruction of the temple, which of course was distracted destroyed by Roman armies and they said when will it be, well, you'll know it's near when you see armies coming in other 20 see the Romans coming and then the dust desolation of Jerusalem will be you nearby soon. This is then let those who drink in Judea flee to the mountains.

Let those who are in the midst of her department. Let those who are in this country not enter her except for these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Now when he says all things that are written, that strikes me as saying all the prophetic things that were written in the Old Testament. I'm not sure what other things that are written. He'd be thinking is the fulfillment of all things that are written. Usually Jesus is speaking in fulfillment of prophecy. But what he says all things that are written. It seems to mean that all prophecy will have been fulfilled in this event, which would mean, of course, that after that event. All the profits will have been fulfilled that had been written in the Old Testament.

Now I've as I say I believe Jesus and the apostles made some prophecies that were not written in the Old Testament, and they have to do with his second coming, but the he's suggesting that the Old Testament prophecies would all be fulfilled by 8070 that's at least the most literal way to understanding and true, we don't always take Jesus completely literally, but the decision of when to do some were not to has got to be based on reasonable exegetical instincts and and research, but in my as a result of my study that I believe that he saying the Old Testament prophets did not really prophesy anything specifically beyond that point and so I would find Hosea to be one of those Old Testament prophecies that would not be fulfilled later point will how about you 2339 played you into you.

You she will not see me henceforth chill ye shall see if you can look right that very first when he was served bring up this verse because it seems like a New Testament counterpart.

What does that mean it. Jesus was leaving the temple.

He'd been preaching in the temple every day for that week and the Jews who rejected and were able to see and hear him every day, but he left the temple on that occasion and never went back and didn't appear publicly anymore until she was arrested and crucified but only his disciples were able to see him after that. That is to hang with him. He he still met with his disciples, he did not appear in public to the Jews anymore. However, they could anyone of them could, and many of them did during the book of acts we know come into fellowship with him again by saying, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. In other words, if they would turn to him. As for example the people did on Palm Sunday. The people who hailed him as King on Palm Sunday they were of course his believers but he speak to unbelievers hear anything until you like them will acknowledge me is the one who comes in the Lord to be seen anymore.

I'm not going to be coming out publicly anymore, but if you want to have any more interactions or you have become in my disciples.

You have to say, Blessed is he that comes name of the Lord so that until you do that you won't be seeing me is pretty simple statement seems to me first to mean to get in contact so they can't, you have to look at chapter 6. Also worth after two days you will revive us in the third day he will raise us up and we shall live in his sight right. I think that's literal literal in his sight, and I think that the reference to the millennium and I just before you go any further. You said you taken literally.

What is the two or three days if it is freezing up in his sight is the millennium. What are the two or three days just prior to that is referring to 2000 years with literal the Bible say 2000 users in two or three days.

After two days will will and your calling back 2000 years 2000 near Sorensen and then you said you taken literally.

In summary, literal to me. If it says today's news as 2000 years is not literal will know today is is metaphor believe it refers is talking spend almost 2000 2000 years in trouble I will. I used to take that which is like in 1972.

If you met me. I would said the same thing at Seo two days refers to the 2000 years of the church age. The third day is another thousand years. Next millennium that would've been my .2. However, I've studied the Bible since then. I don't agree with you know I I honestly am very familiar position.

I taught myself and that doesn't mean I'm not to be condescending because I could be wrong or or you could be our leaders could be wrong but if you like to know my reasons for changing.

I do have verse by verse teachings on Hosea and on every other book of the Bible at our website and are free to listen to so what I'd suggest if you think that I make a mistake about this. Perhaps I am. But to be one way to determine that would be listen to my lectures on Hosea because I do deal with chapters 6, I called you back and I told you anyway, I told another gentleman that I went through a link your guys look at all the passages that I thought made reference to these kinds of all and when I read them, especially in writing their audio files are and in it was you got to Zechariah chapter 14, you said that it was very difficult because you said intuitively could see why people who believed in the millennium. You could see intuitively why they would interpret sure, but you didn't end and that seem disingenuous to me why I gave all my reasons. It was strange when we were before you. Let's let's not go beyond that to we deal with that. Is it disingenuous for me to say I can see why a person reading on a shallow level would intuitively think the start of the second coming of Christ and the millennium. However, although I once held that myself.

I have studied this out and realize that and and I point out comparing Scripture. Scripture that these are this is apocalyptic language and it's referring to something else and I actually in the case of Zechariah 14. Give quite a few New Testament references where it's either referred to or quoted or something and I was an associate how it's applied by the apostles does not apply to future millennium so it's not disingenuous for me to say I don't hold that view anymore just because it's the first view that a person who's reading on a shallow level would take.

I don't think the Bible is written for people. Certainly not 21st century Americans who read on a shallow level.

I think that when you read Hebrew poetry. You have no something about apocalyptic style of writing which they used to have no something about Hebrew poetry itself and and you have to know something or how the New Testament writers understood the same passages which they often reveal when they quote them so you know that's a different way of looking at them then your way. But it's not disingenuous.

It's actually quite open and honest way to do it because I don't just tell my listeners what I think now I tell them what people what other people think about it too, and I tell him why I don't hold that resource. I think disingenuous is very unfair word while I appreciate your service and you know I really monologue to fund the dialogue. I really appreciate things that other people say when they call you, so I really appreciate that and and I don't mean to be unkind or combative or nicking just that when I read all those places in your verse by verse.

Some of them especially seem like it was hard to understand why you would interpret it when you are interpreting it so that I know you other colors so I will let you go okay thank you very much. And by the way, I don't.

I don't necessarily think everyone can agree with me when they listening, but when they asked me why I believe something I say well I know right where you can find that out on any verse in the Bible in the whole Bible that you wonder what I think about it and why I've got. I've explained those very questions.

What I think about it and why. In those lectures.

If some as well. I've heard those your answer side agreement will find that's certainly within your privileges. Anyone's nobody is required to prove me.

Certainly nor I with you, but we are. I think we are excellent expected by God to use our intelligence and to study hard and to compare Scripture, Scripture, as long as we happen to be people privileged to have access to the Scripture. And that's what I try to do you know if somebody else does the same thing and gets a different understanding that's they have my blessing the subject line from Falls Church, Virginia hi Duane, welcome, from the chapter 18, and just in verses six and seven actually fits 11 talk about.

Sins and transgressions from idolatry to have in your neighbor's wife didn't verse 21 you will turn from all his sins that he had committed that you can do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. My question is no cognate knowing that was stolen they will own the data for adultery and idolatry and things like that. It says here, he shall surely live in shall not die, is that I get is that there was a certain time of… I can't help but think about David King David after the Chiba yet. That's my question. Is okay sure since our question in this context is not talking about the judicial punishment for sin. In other words, if he was writing a time where Israel is faithfully keeping the law of Moses, and he said listen, if you commit adultery think that I don't you die. He could very well mean that the magistrate tombstone you to death because that's what the law requires that if you don't do those things you won't die could mean you'll escape capital punishment because you will becoming the crimes in that context, I would see it that way but that's a different context here heat what you think. You talk about is the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. The whole book is about that at/the first half of the book and so the Babylonians are coming every good white people out and this is the dying that is referring to me saying the people who see this danger coming up on them. They're using a proverb which is also found in the book of Jeremiah. The Jews use this proverb a lot and the proverb was the fathers of Eaton this the wild grapes and sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge.

What that means is the fathers did something eight sour grapes and their children are the ones after grimace for normally if you eat sour grapes shoot you agreements but he same. How come our fathers ate the targets and we after grimace. Our teeth are separate. The idea being were suffering not because of what we did were some figures in our fathers that that's not fair.

And that is what is addressing there. He starts out by pointing out in verse two that this is what they are saying anything you don't talk like that anymore. It's not true. He same year not to suffer for your father's sins suffer for your own sins, and your father's anger suffer for your sins suffer only for their own since the point here is they are thinking and the and they say he quotes them saying that you are God's ways are not just using his will or goddesses. What I mean you once were not just not me. I'm being very fair here. The person sense is one pays the penalty that he's addressing the false notion that this was happening to them in their generation because of sins.

There ancestors or their fathers preps. Manasseh is in mine and others had committed and therefore were suffering for that well. There was some impact that of Manasseh, sins on them going into battle and but what he saying is if your father soon they'll suffer for if you sin you will suffer for and you can't just say that this technique is what your father did because you guys are sending to is basically his message or it's your own since you die for, but the general principle is making his gods not to judge people and kill them if they didn't deserve it is not good for the parents, transgressions, for their own and that's the point of making someone dying here. The context specifically has do with dying at the hands. The Babylonians is this is prophesied. This wholesale destruction of the people of Jerusalem by the Babylonians by Nebuchadnezzar's armies same but but that's not gonna happen to anybody because with their fathers did. If someone is righteous, they will escape it and there were few righteous Jeremiah was one of them. He escaped a few others did, but saying that if you are not righteous. Weldon don't complain when this comes upon you is it's not your father since her years to bring upon all right. Okay. Thank you, okay Greg from Orange, California town where I graduated from high school hi Greg, welcome to the narrow path good afternoon always been impressed with a lot of the philosophical statements in the book of Ecclesiastes in it like to get your your thoughts, your case, your exegesis on think it's Ecclesiastes 72 or the writer says it's better to go to a house of mourning Into a house of feasting because I think that's used metaphorically. But I think it has implications for our lives as Christians in the 21st century, and I just like to get your thoughts and Domino drop off the line just list your answer. Okay Greg thanks your call will house the morning. Of course he's referring to the funeral morning is what you doing some guys and to go the house of mourning would be to gather with the survivors of somebody who's died and mourn with them like a funeral was a house of feasting would be just your typical celebration party kind situations is better to go to funeral than a party is basically what he saying now. He says because that is the end of all men. That is the end of all men is not a party but the end of all men is to be mourned die every good guy and he says that it's better to go to house morning than a house of feasting, because that's the end of all men in the heart will receive wisdom from it. Know what he saying is this, that it's easy for us and it's our tendency to forget about the fact that were mortal.

It's easy for us to forget about death and give no thought because it's not pleasant to think about and that we write a party on and he says yes, but you're smarter if you attend funerals than parties because parties simply they just make you not think about the inevitable, which is die and the fact that your diet means there's something you should be preparing yourself for later in Ecclesiastes, he said, you know, fear God and keep his commands, for that's the whole duty of man for his good judge every work and every thought so. In other words, when you die you don't know you think you know you're working the judge for any other consider that in advance because if you're smart and not stupid, you know you're gonna die. And if you know you to dine face God. You should also know if you're smart enough stupid that what you did before you died is going to matter.

It's going to be the very thing will be judged by and so it only makes sense live before you die the way that you will want to be living when you die, and the way that you will want after you die to look back and say I lived that way.

I'm so glad I did instead of living that other way because now extended for God's judgment and that's what he saying you will gain wisdom, the wisdom of fear of taking it. Your mortality is what it means if you attend a funeral at this office.

True enough, a lot of people attend the funerals of their friends who might not even been very old when they died and this is especially true if they weren't in the same wall.

I had no idea. He died that soon, maybe younger guy that soon as I have no idea that I'm going to if if I didn't know he was going to I and I don't know I'm going to but he did. It's not unrealistic. Maybe I will to if not soon sometime so it's it's often the case that preachers exploit funerals.

I think rightly so, as times to evangelize because that's when people are contemplating the reality that they try to escape when their partying or simply having a good time and forgetting what life really is about the end of it is such, I think what Solomon is trying to get across there. I appreciate your calling so I can take another call today Monday if the Lord carries and I think probably will not guarantee it.

Listening to the narrow path. My name is Steve Greg and we are live Monday through Friday at the same time we are listener supported me.

By the time on the radio stations were on and cost a lot of money. If you'd like to help us stay on the air right to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or go to our website. The narrow path.com have a good weekend