This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
June 25, 2020 8:00 am
Losing welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast my name Steve Greg and were live for an hour each week. The afternoon we have a full life. It's open all right now and if you'd like to join us if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith.
You can call me at 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 and will just go directly to the phones at this point and talk to Scott from Phoenix, Arizona Scott, welcome to the neuropathic for color. I think about that you believe what you about the art that could be born into, and I think the thing that it was a type of Jesus when they go into the ark, and not into Jesus and then the ark of the covenant also a type of Jesus and Matthew because I, but the new ring with the Repeating that Mary lived on the ark of the cabinet.
What type of Mary and they get that from a relational and 11 letter since that the ark was leaning heavily in the next day Wells traverse the next chapter talks about marriage is based.
Mary as the woman with the stars naming on the moon" with the sun so you understand something that that yeah that's coming is a type of beets Roman Catholics.
We met up with personal know the ark of the covenant is not well it is a type of Jesus, but it's not. But it's not the type of Mary.
I believe I mean it be the law of God was within its in the messianic Psalm 40 says is Jesus saying your your law is in my heart and you know it's the mercy seat rests upon it. And that's where people meet with God instantly. Jesus is the one who is the connector between man and God. Many times the Bible affirms that now when the Catholics say that the the ark of the covenant is a type of Mary, first of all, there's just nothing to go on the argument you made that they said that they do is that it's the last verse of Revelation 11 where John says he saw the ark of God in heaven. Okay, that's the end of the vision now. Chapter 12 begins a new vision not necessarily connected to the previous one. That's how Revelation is Revelation has a series of visions together vision of seven bowls of wrath, which are not particularly connected to the visions of the of the seals or whatever and so also there's no reason to believe that the proximity of the mention of the ark of the covenant in heaven.
In chapter 11 with the woman who is pregnant with the male child has been to rule the world with the rod of iron. In chapter 12 that that was that the ark is somehow socially identified with that woman that so there's not a word to suggested in the Bible. Now is the woman, Mary, and the Catholic view is twofold. I read an article about this fruit at the request of the Christian research Journal is married a woman of Revelation 12 and researching from Catholic scholars, I found that most of them agreed with me that the woman represents well they didn't agree with me but they represent that she represents the people of God, how they thought she represents the church but I think that in their articles. They were thinking of the Jewish church, the remnant of his faithful before Jesus came and who brought Jesus into the world, I will. That's my view. I believe the woman represents the, the remnant of Israel, like Mary and Joseph and the others in the birth narratives of Jesus were faithful Jews who were looking for the Messiah. And it's that company is that entity that brought the science of the world. I do believe the child of the woman is Jesus.
I believe that Revelation chapter 12 verses 1 to 6 talk about the birth of Jesus and his ascension into heaven but to say that the woman is Mary is a secondary view held among many Catholics.
They some of the scholars say well it's kind of both, both it's the church of Israel, and it's also Mary well well not necessarily, if it's if it's this people of Israel, then that's what is it's true. There was one person of Israel. An individual who brought Jesus and one that was Mary, but the woman does not represent Mary, because if you read on.
In the chapter.
This woman flees into the wilderness in order to avoid persecution after her son. His ascended into heaven, will exit the Jewish church to the Jewish church fled to escape the persecution of 87, actually before the war began at 66. The church in Jerusalem fled. We are told by Eusebius and escaped from Israel and were not there when the Romans came in to their slaughter so this flight of the woman in the wilderness, where she sustained by God. It corresponds to the actual actions of the church. We have no reason to believe this ever happened. Mary that Mary was somehow persecuted and then she fled into the wilderness and was sustained.
There is there's no record and no hint that this would be evidence of Mary's, you know later history also at the end of the chapter, the devil is persecuting Mary's other children inside the woman so the children Catholics believe that Mary had other children, but of course they would take it symbolically that say Roman Catholics are her children, but the Bible never indicates that the Roman Catholics of Christians are in any sense.
Children of Mary, so what they have is they have their own doctoral framework and they bring that it imposes on the chapter and they give meanings to words in the chapter that they don't have in the chapter and have never had historically like a say there's no place in the Bible that ever speaks of Christians as being children, Mary, but rather Paul says in Galatians 4 that the Jerusalem which is above is the mother of us all so only that the Catholic Church is simply doesn't have a case.
All we have is a desire to make that woman Mary and yeah I wouldn't mind it was marriage is that she doesn't fit Protestants like myself, don't deny that Mary brought birth brought Jesus in the world, but insisted that it doesn't fit, doesn't fit the details of the chapter.
So I believe that woman is an entity made up of the faithful remnant of Israel and that we will recall the church in the Old Testament and how they brought Jesus into the world and in favor of that is the fact that when revelations visions depict women like for example Babylon the harlot, or the new Jerusalem, which is a bride, the, the women in Revelation, not individual women. They are entities just like we might talk of them.
The mother country or something like that so certain cities Jerusalem dabbling are referred to as women, and so I don't think that to take this woman as an individual, Mary is quite understanding the way the Revelation rights and divisions depict the truth so I do have an article I wrote and you can find that article. By the way, or at least a link to firstname.lastname@example.org if you noticed Matthew 713.com and scroll on down to Port Arthur articles that I have published. There is a link to the various articles I've had. Published by the Christian research Journal, and one of them was about this very matter, right thank you for your call okay Cheryl from Lincoln, California Cheryl, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling. So I would go and get what you recommended.
I read it straight through PIP and Mike, my question and what struck me is Satan and what I think you cannot get your good drops in the limelight and dropping I wouldn't touch that I didn't touch, so maybe your phone cut out anyway. Feel free to call back and look to hear what you have to say about the book of Job will talk to Marty from national city, California next hello Marty, okay, and another blade 14 to 14 from 8 AM to carry to Babylon, Babylon, 14 to Christ and then Paul writes about the blindness and it happened to the Gentiles.
So would it be safe to go.
Thank you, I don't think we can assume that because when it says in Deuteronomy that God keeps covenant 2000 generations the number thousand is used in the Old Testament as a as a hyperbole. Most of time. The Bible also says the Old Testament God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, or that one day in your presence is better than a thousand or a day to the Lord like a thousand years or the weight is in some 90 verse four says a thousand years in your site are as but yesterday when it is passed like a watch in the night at the number thousand in all these cases is not a statistical number. It's basically, I believe, just a huge number to suggest that it's an endless amount or, at least, in an amount far greater than one could could calculate. And so we also have Satan bound for a thousand years.
In Revelation chapter 20 which I believe is we should take that the same way. Not not as a reference to the actual number of years, but to just a very long time and so again on to say will have another 900 generations before Jesus comes back because he keeps coming for a thousand generations when he's going to keep covenant forever is covenant with us throughout Scripture is called an everlasting covenant, and so there's never to be an end to the covenant that Christ made it's a permanent covenant, but I appreciate your you're asking is talk to David away. I'm sorry David, come back to Cheryl from Lincoln that got cut off his back. I really should put her first.
Cheryl looking to the neuropathic for calling Job and his friend understand about at that time about what role Satan had suffering. What they didn't seem to have any knowledge of it. Nominate when when Job and his counselors talking to each other. They don't seem to have any awareness of why Job was suffering, or many of the back story that were given in the first two chapters by the way, the first two chapters are set off from the rest of the book in that they are pros there in a narrative in prose resin speeches begin in chapter 3, they're all in poetry, so most of the book of Job is a poetic book, but the first two chapters are prosaic narrative and and whoever wrote that wrote it afterwards and also wrote a conclusion at the end of chapter 42 in prose so somebody who who wrote who wrote the book down knew about Satan and how that person knew we we have no way of knowing, except to say, no doubt it was a prophet that was probably revealed who wrote it down.
We do know of another profit. For example, Zechariah, who in chapter 3 of the book of Zechariah saw Satan you dealing with one of God's people, the high priest Joshua and in God rebuking himself, or so we see Satan presenting himself before the Lord and making a case in Zechariah chapter 3 also and if course that's a vision that Zechariah saw his vision of this situation. So whoever wrote Job may well have had a vision also of of the material that's in the first two chapters so that that person by Revelation knew about Satan's activity but Job and his his friends don't seem to have known anything about the transcendent meaning behind his sufferings, speculating only and how do we relate that today to buy the question probably back and I think that when I'm going to a hard time like in like that is actually on the attack and yet all I need to do is take it. God completed and holy by the Holy Spirit and the outcome it doesn't really change anything it be there around or not, because our salvation through Jesus and our help it well, Megan, Derek, is that correct ending. We don't need to be really and finger collecting. No, we don't need to be just as God is allowing Satan to test us then no doubt that testers can run its course and a lot of people when they feel like they're being that trials are coming to them and that it's the devil don't start rebuking the devil and significantly get get rid of the child that way the Bible the Bible never describes anyone responding that way to the trials even even Jesus are even the apostles sobbing this idea that if we if we just know our authority in Christ to command the devil you can just make him go away and in our trials were going to the word of faith, mentality, which is not a biblical one at all. Job did exactly what he should do. Even though he didn't know what was going on. He stayed faithful to God. See the purpose of the test was to see if he would. And that's the purpose of our test to when God allows Satan to buffet us in various ways, like Job were being tested to see if will cling to our faith in Christ glorify him.
Praise him through it like Job did not Job. Of course, had a lot of complaining he did to. But you know his his initial response was exactly what it should be. He said you know the Lord gave the Lord took away blessed be the name of the Lord. Now when his friends began to accuse him.
He got grumpy about that because they were missed they were mischaracterizing him and there falsely judging him so his attitude wasn't all that good through some of that, he remained faithful to God and at the end of it. It says that when when in the narration. It says that Job's friends did not speak rightly of God as Job did so Job apparently passed the test and did speak rightly of God. And that's that's what we need that we need to recognize if God is allowing us to be tested, then what he wants us to do is the same things don't trust them, and still believe he's good and still glorify him and not give the devil any satisfaction who would like to see us curse God and die. Thank you very very much okay Cheryl, thanks for your call David from San Diego. I do, how you doing David is doing all right how to go on the good it, I don't know.
Cheryl is still listening but let me just mention a book I read last year that I think did a phenomenal job with some of those questions to it's called Job the wisdom of the cross by Christopher Ash and also Michael Brown came out with the a new book it's called Job the city to challenge God Michael L.
I have read that one completely, but I read portion read that the section that deals with Satan may think it was really good to anyway that's Rochelle she's listening. My question is about fundamentalism of the more I'm reading more. It seems that it's like nailing Jell-O to the wall. Scholars in different creatures out there own little way of finding fundamentalism and so I have two questions for you.
The first one is how you define fundamentalism and then the more important question would be do you feel that it is good is it a good thing for the church. A bad thing and I listen off the phone.
Okay, David. Thank you, I sure will.
Fundamentalism obviously is a term that evolves to mean different things as time goes by. Fundamentalist Christianity receive that title back in the early 1900s back when some very, very scholarly Protestants at Princeton University and in some other centers of Christian scholarship at the time reacted to what had been a European trend that came over to America to try to doubt you know that traditional authorship the traditional times of writing the traditional low inspiration of the Bible that's that's when you know the church began to be invaded by the documentary hypothesis concerning the Pentateuch and the multiple authors of Isaiah and the late dating Daniel, and so forth. This was a liberal trend was called modernist than they we now call it liberal but back in the end of the 19th century and early 20th century of these attacks on the Bible consider to be modernism and in the response to its was fundamentalism now today we think of fundamentalism almost as irrational, you know, devotion to may be archaic ideas at least some people think of it that way when we talk about fundamentalist Muslims. For example, usually people are thinking.
Okay, these people are our non-thinkers. They just irrationally follow the dictates of their old-fashioned religion and that's you know when you term a Christian fundamentalism. I think a lot of people would see it that way to the irony is that the fundamentalists were among the most intellectual humans in America at the time and people like G Gresham H&M Benjamin B. Warfield and Susan Carswell Calvinist tube is a reformed movement at the time to answer the modernist complaints and I think they did very well. I think a great deal of the apologetic answers that we have two liberalism in the in the Christian church were formulated in those days by these these brilliant scholars now what happened is fundamentalism spreading outside of the reformed circles tended to be infiltrated by dispensationalism and and basically strictly biblical literalism, nonbiblical literalism is not something that the early fundamentalist writers advocated but some later developments cause fundamentalism to be associated with a literal interpretation of things that many, many conservative Christians have always thought could be taken figuratively, especially the book of Revelation. The word fundamentalism is taken from a book written by G. Gresham makes him one of those Christian scholars that was called the fundamentals, but interestingly the scholarly fundamentalism of the early 20th century has evolved into more of a dispensational was just for this are not seen dispensational scampi scholarly. There are scholarly dispensations, but among them the lesser scholars of the Christian church who are very conservative, typically they they adopt a dispensational position so that fundamentalism has come to be associated with the strict front literal interpretation of Revelation. For example, and of course it's associate with the literal story of creation in Genesis 1, which I by the way, except lots not all conservative Christians doing throughout history. Not all have so you're taking things in the Bible more literally than sometimes Christians traditionally have his associate with what we call fundamentalist today and I think those who are. I think people who are what formally was recalled fundamentalist have changed their name to evangelicals and today I think you won't find very many people call themselves fundamentalists unless they are kind of the ocean is a doctrinaire people who who think the Bible has every word has be taken in the literal sense and I mean I don't misrepresent it and that I grew up.
Think of myself as a fundamentalist and in a fundamentalist home that I realized that I grew up that that term had come to be associated with the I think often of very non-scholarly approach to the Bible. In some cases, and those who are scholars who hold the Bible to be the inspired word of God have distanced themselves from the word fundamentalism now and call themselves evangelicals. And that's what I would call myself to.
Although I have to say some of the things that are very typical in American evangelicalism seemed to me more narrow than the Bible is on some on some points but you said is it a good thing or bad thing. I'll just say you know is I know you're not her Calvinist, you might say, this is bad. Think some people say Calvinism's good thing I said our good Calvinists and and is good Calvinists and others good Arminians and others that are and so forth.
I think there are certainly good fundamentalist and probably some not so good. I'm Westborough Baptist Church comes to mind as a very bigoted kind of a group of people called subscriptions they would certainly call themselves fundamentalist and I think there were many outsiders would would refer to as fundamentalism when they look on the Christian church that sale. Those of the fundamentalist. I think that's a bad thing. I think the term fundamentalist might have outlived its usefulness. I'm not saying it refers to something bad because what refer to and it arose hundred and 20 years ago. It was a good thing in my opinion, it's just that the word doesn't have all the same connotations that did languages evolve and fundamentalism is certainly one of those words in our language that is evolves. I think it's probably, it's probably wise not to use that term unless you are really you know when those people who've not ashamed to be in no strict literalist is real. King James only's would also be well within the range of the fundamentalist term messages now I feel the original fundamentalist women believe that King James only, but the people who take kind of what I would consider some of irrational views based on slightly superstitious views of the Bible, rather than responsible study the Bible often would be just lumped together and that fundamentalist I don't think that's a good mentality. I think people like that can be Christians but I would think most Christians who believe the Bible is the word of God as I do would probably gravitate to some other term, and term of choice for most is the term evangelical particular moment in time. What will be the case.
10 years from now. I don't know labels labels do change. I just think how many different terms. We've been taught in our lifetime tactical African-Americans labels outgrow their popularity and I and were required to use other sometimes that's just because the changes in language and culture. Can you take a break, but I'll be right back with another half hour ago, so don't go away. Six of the narrow path. My name is Steve Greg. We are listener supported. You can write to us at the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or go to our website. The narrow path.com Hebrews tells us, do not forget to do good and to share with others and share the narrow With family and friends. When the show is over today and wanted to go to the narrow path.com they can learn and enjoy your teachings blog articles verse diverse teachings and archives of all the narrow path, radiation, and be sure to tell them to tune into the show here on the radio chairlift noted the narrow and do good narrow path radio broadcast Steve Greg and we are live for another half hour taking your phone calls.
If you have questions about the Bible of the faith or any other viewpoint different from that of the host want to discuss that on the air.
You may call me at this number 844-484-5737 and we do have some of our lines open right now so you could get through if you call right now 844-484-5737 writer next color is Luke calling from Portland, Oregon. Luke welcome to the neuropathic for calling the question regarding regarding future sacrifice and the third Temple Church we go to hold that you you know they say. Looking back, the will be looking back in remembrance not sent.
I'm having a lot of trouble I get working through accepting that you I don't want to be invited, but I just find it supported scripturally. I'm not sure what Diane make so much that I have to find may be a different congregation or am I being too. I don't know too serious know I think it's I think it's a serious difference. At the same time I don't think you'd have to break fellowship with people who hold that view. It's a very common view is a dispensational view is what it is, amid the dispensations believe that when Jesus comes back. He is going to reestablish the Jewish temple and the Jewish animal practice for sacrifice practices, which of course is an astonishing claim and an end since late since it goes totally against the book of Hebrews. For example, many dispensational say I've I've met some who don't. But many say well the sacrifices offered during the millennium after Jesus comes back in the temple.
The animal sacrifices they will will be a memorial of the death of Jesus registers the Old Testament sacrifices look forward to the death of Jesus. These funds will be a memorial and they won't be atoning well first of all, we don't need a different memorial Jesus himself gave us a memorial of his death in the communion meal would do this to remember me. He ended the sacrificial system eventually and the and he left the church with a permanent memorial mall. The only reason anyone would even imagine that there's 1/3 Temple, and 1/3 offer animal sacrifices during the millennium is because of prompts I can think of two passages one of them is a very is a shorter one than the other. That's Zechariah 14 Zechariah 14 does mention Temple bowls and things like that and worship in at the end of that chapter and some people think that that's a chapter, talk about the future millennium so they they believe that it is talking about. After Jesus comes back that the temple be standing.
I don't understand. Zechariah 14 that way and anyone who's interested in knowing how I do check my verse diverse lectures online. Where do give a lot of attention to that chapter, but the other section of Scripture they use is Ezekiel chapter 40 through 48.
The last nine chapters of Ezekiel, and that is simply a vision of the temple. It doesn't say that it will necessarily be built and it hasn't been built, but it does mention animal sacrifices and it even mentions it.
Therefore, in atonement, you know, it's a funny thing because these guys who believe there to be temple sacrifices they indicated as not to be front atonement, but the passage itself says it is in Ezekiel 43. For example, it says relevancy here in verse 22 on the second day you shall offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering and they shall cleanse the altar as they cleansed it with the bull and then it says, and in verse 26, seven days they shall make atonement for the altar and purified and so consecrated and going on and talk to how the Prince himself, who dispensations believe is a reference to Christ though it isn't it talks about him offering peace offerings as atonement for himself and says this in chapter 45 of Ezekiel says and one lamp shall be given from the flock of 200 from the rich pastors of Israel. They shall be for grain offerings, burnt offerings, peace offerings to make atonement for them, says the Lord God. So these offerings are to make atonement for not a memorial of anything in verse 1745 17 the end of the chapter reverse as he shall prepare the sin offering and the grain offering and the burnt offering and peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel in verse 20 it says and so you shall do on the seventh day of the month. For everyone who is sinned unintentionally and or an ignorance that she shall make atonement for the temple so I and and you get more this. These are these are all in the you know the same description of the temple that this is not describing something in the millennium. All you see dispensational is who think there's any third Temple.
They believe that the this is target the millennium and the millennium.
Jesus will have come back I we ourselves will been risen from the dead and will be ratings Christ in the millennium. They say and do and will be worshiping the temple offer these animal sacrifices, but they can't claim that is not front atonement since the passage they use, says it is now my understanding of course is that the temple this is referring to an Old Testament temple that never got never got built. It doesn't ever say it will be built necessarily, it just is a vision of the temple and it says specifically in chapter 43 verse 10 and 11 Son of Man described the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities and let them measure the pattern and if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them. The design of the temple if they are ashamed. This is conditional point is the Jews had their temple destroyed the Solomon's Temple been destroyed.
The Jews were carried away to Babylon and that's where they were when Ezekiel received this mission. There was no temple standing in Jerusalem and the people themselves were captives, and babbling and God says listening is shown the temple and if there ashamed. Given the pattern that makes it very clear if they've learned their lesson after repentant will then give them this blueprint and obviously when they go back to Jerusalem until the temple, they can build this temple, but they weren't mean. Some of them were a very small number of very small remnant actually cared enough to go and rebuild the temple, and so they built it a much inferior temple to this one. They didn't have the resources human and or financial to build this temple so they built a smaller temple in this temple simply was forfeited by the lack of repentance and obedience look like to meet there something in the ecology it may be worth looking out or elevate red flag something that again a word that it is work drawing lines. Well, you know, I have a hard time being ultra-harsh on this is a pretty bad view is obviously it suggests that a Temple sacrifice system which Jesus ended and which God himself. In the Old Testament, said he had no pleasure in it.
He didn't like it you know is a sacrifice and offerings.
You did not desired and then you have no pleasure said you know talking to God. God wasn't crazy about the sacrificial system. It was a necessary teaching tool until the Messiah came.
Now when he came it was abolished. Why would he reestablish some he never liked to go on for thousand years in the millennium when Jesus comes back when there's nothing Wednesday. Frankly, Jesus has done everything it has to be done when he comes back shall of restored everything is restored.
Why go back to a system that was never, never, God's delight at all. It's it's basically based entirely on Ezekiel 40 through 48 and Zechariah 14.
As far as the Old Testament goes then then they try to read it into some passages in the New Testament where it is found to be out of the gate to the college. You feel like I was talking to previous, those who think this take every word in the Bible literally. Well, there's a lot of symbolism in these visions and if you don't recognize symbolisms and others.
This has to be literally built, well then you're going to go off into strange doctrines that you get with the blood of animals is again good abuse front atonement of sin when Jesus comes back to crazy crazy is having spiritualized parts of it anyway. So then why not spiritualized a little more and I'm glad you seem to be, and I cried meet well. They still try to keep Christ at the center, but you I mean I'm sure you're as Paul heard that you and Paul heard this view of a rebuilt temple. I think he would tear his clothing and say that's antichrist but but if the you know if the dispensations don't want to be antichrist, so they basically said no.
This is still about Christ, but it isn't running. The passage isn't they say will. Christ, he's that he's the Prince will then why does the Prince have to offer and will success his first term refers own sense and season since the Prince is not Jesus. It's simply the generic Prince of Israel are at any given time there is a gate for him. There's a special set of offerings for him.
Just like there are for the priests and so forth. The Prince in this passage is certainly not Jesus, and the sacrifices are certainly not a memorial they are running. If you be literal be literal. It says it's atonement of sin. Listen, I let let me just say this I I mentioned to an article I wrote for the Christian research Journal to a previous collar. I also run on the temple. In fact on this vision of the temple vision of Ezekiel. Actually, the article won an award. I didn't submit it for one. But the Hank paragraph and Chris research to publish if they submitted in one award among some Christian periodicals stuff the name of the war war, but it's on it's called making sense of the temple vision of Ezekiel and if you go to Matthew 713.com that's Matthew 713.com scrolling down to see my articles. It's posted there at least a link to this posted there so I go into more detail than I can especially supply lines are full and need to move law thanks your call – it by now. Victor from Charlotte, North Carolina. Welcome to the narrow path Victor I'm well thanks okay. 14 and they know it, how death reigned from Adam to Moses and Linda got a pretty good idea, but I can hear you have a very back up my idea of why I think that looked at me what you think of me or what make you think it can be can be applied to answer this.
Why death reigned from Adam to mold well. Paul is giving sort of the narration of the history of sin in the human race, and he mentions that you know it was Adam who first sinned and therefore brought death into the world and so forth.
But it says he's going to go on saga how the law didn't help, but later on to say, the law entered the word. It just kinda made things worse, but he does say even though the law had a role in it. The law didn't cause death. Sin had a life of its own, because death even without the law, and he says, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even to those in among those who had not sinned in the way that Adam did most commenters would say that in the way Adam did means you will fling over violating a law of God.
God told Adam not to do something and he did it anyway and that was a transgression of the law. It wasn't just ignorance and it was delivered sin and course.
The law came and then of course violation of the law was delivered. Sin and its that's transgression of the law, but after Adam assumed, and until the law came there weren't really laws that God gave like that. So one could say will after Adam and until Moses, there were really any laws for people to to violate so they must of been a sin within certainly the story of Noah took place between Adam and Moses and sound like the world was full of sin full of violence and so forth. There's plenty of sin.
There just weren't any commandments. These people were not like Adam violating a stated command, but they were sinning and they died, and he says death reigned over mankind from Adam to Moses meeting between the time of Adam sin and the time that Moses came and gave the law even though there were not commands that the reviling they were still sitting and incurring death, and so death still rain. I think what he saying there is that sin has its own existence that does not depend on the law sin is something in man nature something in man's members as he sprinted in chapter 7 of Romans. So but but he then goes on and says will the law came but he says the event and then didn't help any adjustment sin abound more so anyway that's that verse fits in that particular context. What was your thought about the verse when the law came to dad to hire lobbyists after Adam. Before Moses, you would die either by handyman Natalie animal fabricates may be that would yield – the law came. Now we got to do this ably you break my law are you going to die so that was taken on how death reigned from a different way you would die either barred by the not my will that when the law came back because of the law, not because of natural mean the man myself law may be yeah. I believe that when Paul said when the commandment came, sin revived and slough me. I died. I think you some of the different kind of death there when in chapter 5. What it says death came true. Adam, on the whole world of physical death, because later on in first Corinthians 15 Paul also says that you through one man death came on all but through one man meeting Jesus resurrection from the dead comes to all and so I think you some of physical death. What happened to humans because of Adam's sin was physical death. What happens because of Jesus ago in the resurrection from the dead, which is the last day that's resurrection from physical death, but there's death is used in other ways. In the Bible to figuratively the spiritual condition. You know, and so forth. And I think in Romans seven Paul says when the law came I died. I think what he means by that is not that he physically died or even that for the first time he is now subject to physical death because he been all generations before him, including himself, or subject physical death but I think he means that when the law came. It caused me to expensive physical death.
In my spiritual death. In terms my relation with God because I now knew myself to be a sinner and my conscience then condemned before God, which it did not before. Since I was alive once before the law on the farm to the lie was a lot of points but when the law came I died. I think what he means is my life with God.
My spiritual life with God. My conscience toward God was clear until I knew what God commanded and then it was no longer clear and are suddenly condemned as were condemned to die anyway. It's it's complex study to consider how the word death is being used in the various places that the Bible uses it because it issues quite a few different ways as a matter fact and for example it says that in chapter 4 of Romans, it says that Paul sent Paul says that Abraham's body was as good as dead or it actually says his body was dead, he means in terms of been about children, he says he did not consider his own body which was dead, nor the deadness of Sarah's womb talking at the same concept when you go to Hebrews 11 it says he didn't hear from him who is as good as dead, there arose as many as the sand and seashore so dad can mean as good as dead in some sense to others and in that case, it means the deadness of being able not procreate.
So we we need to make sure that when we look at the context of following Paul's train of thought. For example, that we recognize that the word dad is a metaphor to choose a variety of ways and sometimes she is a physical death in the most literal sense. It just depends on the context and his flow of thought always needs be taken into consideration. I appreciate your call brother Efrain was a trucker calling from call you last week, truck driver, yet have two questions into one amendment is really just one but you had you would you you had answered your soon if it's a nifty bit something to me this morning I thought about you and but I did answer, he would give me was just telling me that if you know he's been refusing to put a mask over his mouth and I had decided on December truck driver and that you know they require that you like to where I go pickup and delivery.
He said that our governor North Carolina and I heard on the radio that they extended face to and postpone the face.
We open it and not only, but they Gumby require order or you guys going to be required for everybody to know when you are out tonight.
I'm sorry your question my question, he said it best that the market debated these and I just didn't pass. I just I had you not felt like I had bantered but now I'm not sure in and think that. I will. I wonder if you if you would answer your son like that or in what would you say well I would say the mark of the beast is a term that's used in the Bible and has a specific meaning, and it's not talk about wearing a mask, it may well be that wearing a mask is a slavish submission to state authority and that the mark of the beast also would perhaps represent slavish submission to the state authority against God, but specifically the mark of the beast is shows somebodies hostility toward God and loyalty to Satan.
Now putting on a mask. Of course, is in no sense a mark of hostility to God or of loyalty to Satan. It's something people do for the health now what he may be saying is I don't believe the state really has her health in mind. I don't think master to help anything and so many of the doctors and experts even pathology. At one point said the same thing in as the health experts don't really know what to talk about in this case they keep changing your story goes back and forth back and forth a good obviously they don't know. So he might just say well the only reason where mask is to be slavishly subservient to the state. Well, I think that we should be fairly certain slavishly subservient to the state, insofar as it doesn't involve any compromise on our part of the Bible does say that we should seek to obey the laws of the land but there's times you don't decide you shouldn't if they're requiring you to do something that a Christian would, in principle, object to, but I don't know anything about wearing a mask that would make it something in principle a Christian would have to object to, and therefore, I wouldn't think that it could in any sense have any parallel to the mark of the beast. I appreciate your call except Nick from Atlanta, Georgia hi Nick, welcome to the narrow path Nick going once, going twice.
It's not there. Or at least he's not coming through talk to Stephen from Irvine, California hi Stephen, welcome to the narrow path.
That's the comic question about the Catholic Church and how much like how many different doctors or whatever, it would not quit and it really is an attempt by then you try to control people by taking out some information and then my other question is, is it) that question, which is the Apocrypha and how much of that can like it good to be studying that of the Christian is bad and I wanted to talk a little bit about how great that like you know like that.
And in Hebrew mythology, which is connected to a little dabbling in it.
Talk about that that natural Angel and I don't know you know just what exactly that means. I know that in the Jewish that means that payee and all indoor but then something update need not lose the mail so I'm just in the outcome picking up a cute okay I can't cancel that in the like two minutes.
I have left of the show that this is not an angel but it may be inflicted financial at times, but death is not an angel is not an angel that is identified with death of the sometimes angels cause death to kill people but said no, that would be Hebrew mythology, not not not the Bible teaches stars the Catholic Church they have changed a great deal for the Catholic Church's been around for piano obviously 1500 years or more, and that being so, they had time to accumulate ideas that aren't found in the Bible. And this is only because they don't have a commitment to sticking with the Bible that they believe that the Bible and church tradition are equal in value.
So if you don't find some in the Bible if they can conclude that it's nonetheless something that was interested tradition, they believe it as much as if it was in the Bible.
And of course the establishment of traditions with the new ones created all the time. I mean at one point in Vatican one. The official position of the church was anybody who's not really in the Catholic Church is lost and going to hell by Vatican II. They change that now they say well, people who are in the Catholic Church might be saved if they don't know that they're supposed to be in the Catholic Church. But if they're serving God in the way that best know how. So in other words there traditions change the traditions about Mary's sinless nurse send her her own immaculate conception in her mother's womb and her assumption into heaven at the end of her life. Those are very late doctrines.
There's nothing those late traditions so you know in in 1500 years. If you're not disciplining yourself by what the Scripture says in keeping your views aligned with the script says there's room for the accumulation of a great number of the traditions which have no truth in them at all, but which are passed along as if they're on the same level Scripture. And that's with the Roman Catholic Church is doing now do B. Christian, of course, I believe a Catholic to be Christian, but the church itself as an institution has not really been loyal stars, the Apocrypha is concerned, I don't believe that the books and talk for Scripture, even the Catholic Church believes their secondary Scripture Protestant churches don't usually deliver Scripture at all. And that's because the Jews did not choose to not accept in Jesus day and neither did Jesus is hell except the Apocrypha Scripture so should Christian freedom.
Well Luther thought they were edifying to read so that he didn't think they should be about, and I guess maybe I'd say the same thing. You can read lots of books that are in Scripture for edification, but their mission statement for Scripture right time you been listening to the narrow path, we are listener supported. You can help us out by going to our website. The narrow path.com and looking under the link that says donations. The narrow path.com talk again tomorrow –