Share This Episode
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg Logo

The Narrow Path 7/20

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg
The Truth Network Radio
July 20, 2020 8:00 am

The Narrow Path 7/20

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


July 20, 2020 8:00 am

Enjoy this program from Steve Gregg and The Narrow Path Radio.

COVERED TOPICS / TAGS (Click to Search)
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg

In the moving thing in welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast Steve Greg Morelos for an hour each week afternoon taking her calls. If you have questions about the Bible of the Christian faith. You may feel free to give us a call will talk to about them today.

If you have a different different point from the host will talk about that. We welcome that as well.

The number is 844-484-5737. We have a few lines open at this moment, this is a good time to catch us 844-484-5737 and I just before we take calls. I would like to remind you that we have besides our ordinary website which is the narrow path.com which is loaded with free resources we have another website that some friends have developed. It's called Matthew 713.com. Matthew 713.com at this website. There's actually an index that has been prepared of calls from our archive of these programs topically. You can actually look up the topic of the question and it'll bring up the past occasions on the program when such a question was asked and when we gave answers to and there's a number of people been working very diligently on this website for I don't how long is your two and it's a great resource if you're looking for answers to particular question from the past there so thousands of questions indexed there. Also, from time to time people call contact me and ask if I have notes on any of the lectures are listening. Some lecture series from our website and ask if I have printed notes notes for most of the lectures, at least for most have notes for them are there at Matthew 713.

Also, Matthew 713.com so it's a website associated with our ministry and it's got some resources that we don't have in our website in the topical index of calls from the archives and also the printed notes of the various lectures, many of you been wanting so check out Matthew 713.com alright, let's do everything for either of course, there is no charge for when you talk to John from Oregon city, Oregon. Welcome to the mexicali glycol office of all, i will apologize like this question to the best jesus said when you therefore shall see the abomination of this nation spoke about the prophets stand in the holy place so we to understand so when daniel would you guess you i believe is referring to daniel 927 will. that's a very general, not the abomination of desolation is mentioned three times in daniel, but is not always the same one. for example, in chapter 11 the abomination of desolation refers to antiochus epiphany setting up a altar to zeus and sacrificing a pig in the jewish temple which happened in 168 bc, or 167 bc now jesus is not predicting that, of course, because that happened almost 2 centuries before his time, so he's predicting something else in the future now in chapter 9 verse 27.

it describes the messiah being cut off, that is killed and then it talks about how the armies of the prince was to come will come to destroy the city. that's jerusalem and the sanctuary with the temple, so the destruction of the temple in 70 a.d. is predicted in matthew 927 and referred to as the abomination of desolation and we know that that's what it's about because where is matthew's gospel and marks both have jesus saying when you see the abomination of desolation. luke has the parallel statement has the parallel sermon.

the all of the discourse in luke chapter 21 and there. if you follow luke 21 verse by verse alongside mark 13 or matthew 24 which both all three passages have the same discourse you'll find that luke kinda reword things occasionally to make it a little clearer. for example, the term abomination of desolation is clearly in an unusual term to most beers and most people know what it means when luke comes to that point in the discourse it's at luke 2120 and instead of saying when you see the abomination of desolation. he says when you see jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that it's desolation is near.

so the abomination is going to bring about the desolation of jerusalem is coming when you see the armies coming to besiege jerusalem, which his disciples, some of them would live to see that actually happened and so the abomination of desolation. according to luke is the coming of the roman armies to destroy jerusalem and that's of course daniel 927 predicts that that'll happen after the messiah has been killed which jesus was killed and 8030 jerusalem was destroyed 40 years later and jesus said all these things will happen within this generation, meaning his own so it happened within 40 years. so he's right on the money. perfect prediction when i went through your use of verse by verse. when you come onto the passage you admit you don't which one method will it daniel okay daniel, i know you have 12 daniel 12 there's a mention in daniel 12. also, the abomination of desolation, but it's a very perplexing passage because it talks about will be 1290 days, but blesses he wonders for the 1335 days and so forth. and it's those those days are not explained, especially the 45 day difference between the two numbers in verse 12 and verse 1112 so, but the abomination of desolation is mentioned 1/3 time in daniel 1211 but nothing is said to identify justice from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away.

in the abomination of the desolation is set up, there shall be 1290 days now the daily sacrifices were taken away. you know when antiochus epiphany sacrificed pig in 168 bc, but then they were taken away again. also course when jerusalem was destroyed in 70 a.d. so it's not what i said i don't understand the passage i don't mean i can't make any sense of it all. it means that there's more than one possible meaning i could see it having which is another way of saying i don't know which is the right answer. it is no mention of the abomination relation but i will tell you this is her some hand in it a very wicked person will be in a very holy place. a very critical time, let you go and get call okay. i appreciate your call.

i can of course i'm very familiar with the dispensational view that the abomination of desolation is a future event. but of course she said it would happen in his generation. so, since there was the abomination of desolation which daniel spoke of in 927 that did happen within a generation of jesus predicting it is every reason to believe that that was it for like; micah predicts that the messiah be born in bethlehem. and then jesus was born about. okay, that was fulfilled. we don't look for additional fulfillments. what should we. it's is a prediction came true. alright let's talk to ian from tallahassee, florida hi ian, welcome to the narrow path. thanks for calling i can guess. the dimensions of the tabernacle sanctuary holy place are mentioned explicitly and in any part of the pentateuch, because i know that mention that it was 30 cubits by 12 or 10 cubits. and when i got to looking for good. scripture i couldn't find those dimensions neatly lined out looking in the wrong place. well it is. it is an exit this in the, the tabernacle building is what it's 10 cubits wide, which would be 15 feet and it's a 30 cubits the other dimension deep and that's 45 feet and is 15 cubits tall and 10 cubits tall, which is $0.53 is 15 x 15 x 45' is the dimensions. now corsets, there's like four chapters of description axis of all the details and i can't put my finger right on at this moment without getting concordance out or something on the exact passage that mentions those details, but that's those are those deftly in the description chapter 20 chapter 25.1 yet is exodus 25, 129.

my wife just told she's a little about sometimes. like i can't look stuff up on the radio but so cheap sometimes. all right, good. all right, i think you and i appreciate you showing only okay thank you very much for the call jim from los angeles.

welcome to the neuropathic for calling you would take my call. i appreciate all of your teaching ministry and my questions in regards to godly living within the kingdom of god. yes, i have relatives who is touting that they are living godly living. however, they had committed adultery in the church with another church member and they are continuing to continue on that path.

they did get married after he had divorced his wife within a few weeks after the divorce taken place and given all the passages were adultery is mentioned in scripture. i don't i'm trying to figure out can i is a fellow believer still honor this person apparent commitment to god.

but the problem i'm having is that they've never actually come out and repented of the act of adultery night.

i don't know exactly how to reconcile that rick it is an even if it's even possible to reconcile that i wanted to gather your thoughts based course jesus said in matthew 532 that if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than fornication that means hers not his. if he divorces her if he remarries you know he's committing adultery so the fact that he committed adultery but then married doesn't change the fact he still committing adultery.

jesus said, unless of course his. he has either at the time, or subsequently had grounds for divorce. now the woman he married was she married to somebody else or she single she was single and 20 years younger okay so tell me about his his wife. what has she done since this since, well, she is older she waited about eight years and then she met somebody much later decided to marry that person. so her and she had every right to okay so so he divorce her many years ago and she waited eight years and then remarried, correct that correct okay well it seems to me since she remarried that changes the game because he cannot go back to her now because she has legitimately remarried.

he may have married in adultery. and if she was still single and waiting for him and and loyal to him. he he'd still just be a guy who's in god's sight still married to her and committing adultery. still, even though the state gave a marriage license for the state doesn't have the authority to turn adultery into marriage. by the way some people make the mistake of thinking the state can do this kind of magic, but adultery is one thing in marriage is the opposite. so jesus said the remarriage is adultery.

if there were not proper grounds for ending the first marriage. now he didn't have proper grounds, so he committed adultery before the divorce he committed adultery after the divorce, committed adultery by marrying the woman is however in all of that is horrible, but his wife has gone on in and married somebody else, which means that he cannot go back to her now. the only reason for him to have to end his present relationship would be if there was somebody who he owes it to to go back to god. i mean i'm thinking of david for example, david committed adultery with bathsheba and when he repented her husband was now dead and so she couldn't go but there's no one for her to go back to so he was able to repent of their sin and then continue in the marriage and in fact we have recently got accepted that arrangement after that because he gave solomon to emerge and then later jesus through marriage and david had a lot of other sense god could about jesus through so i understand it to be that if you commit adultery by marrying somebody who's when your spouse was faithful, and so forth. if you thought your spouse and stayed faithful waiting for you even leave remarried that i think there's an obligation to go back to the faithful spouse you got the house you talking have to still fulfill. but if the spouse has moved on and got another another mate which, of course, in this case the woman had every right to do because her husband had committed adultery. she had grounds, so she's now in a legitimate marriage which cannot be broken and he course could never go back to her even if he wished to course he does want to but if you wish to.

he couldn't.

so it seems to me that he's in a position a lot like david was in when he repented, except your friend has repented. it sounds like now. if your friend does repent.

he does repent. i think it's possible for them to truly repent and be broken over this adultery. and yet, since there's no obligation back to his wife. i think that he could then because his wife is remarried. i think he could ask god to solemnize legitimately and righteously.

his his present marriage that started the wrong way. so to david and bathsheba's but how marriage started and i think a person in marriage should consider not so much how legitimate it was when they started it but how, what, where does it stand now and i think that since he can't go back to his wife is not obligated to, and therefore think he said he of course needs repent of adultery because adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of god. but the but a person repents of adultery doesn't continued to carry out adultery facts that person is not in adultery anymore so he needs to stop being that is meaningless. living with his present wife.

for some people it would mean that but his situation is different but does mean he's needs to truly recognize it. he did a horrendous thing to his wife and any children they might've had pentagon, especially to god when david repented of his adultery. even though he did not give it that should be run a wrenching repentance. in psalm 51 and he said god against you and you only have i sent and on this great evil in your sight and others, although he had actually sinned against others.

what was wayne most heavily upon was how he had hit sinned against god.

in fact, nathan, the prophet told david you've given the enemies of the lord occasion to blaspheme.

and that was what really think was what made david feel totally convicted any christian who is committed adultery has given the enemies of the lord occasion to back, to blaspheme and and therefore it's a horrendous, sacrilege, as well as active unfaithfulness and injustice meets it's it's an all points horrible and on acceptable but i believe that because this circumstances of his situation. since the divorce.

and since his remarriage. it seems to me like if he truly repents that he could continue to be married to us. wife and that could be honored the grace of god is an amazing thing, as long as there's not something were left leaving undone and we repent that i believe god restores us to as if we did not send the lack of repentance. but i think it is now i know is right.

the adulterer was and is my father in the same time trying to hold to the honor thy father and mother, but it's difficult to do with a lack of repentance on this particular issue and am trying to lease faithful to that commandment that the same time. i'm just not seeing. it's very sad. i've had many a number of callers in your very situation.

his parents have done similar things and it's this is hard. how do you honor your parents and so forth. you can show respect to your father in a generic sense, but the officer cannot honor is on repentance toward your mother because if i mean what he's doing until he repents. it is saying he did a horrible thing to her mother. he doesn't care. basically which is terrible. all right, i need to call. sorry to hear about your situation. thank you state what is this become god bless you eddie from dearborn, michigan. welcome to the narrow path that you mentioned couple of times disciple did not preach in the family that we preach today going to check it out in the bible and they don't seem to preach hello have not yet been going door knocking and dearborn preaching jesus for about five years prison ministry for about two years. the only way i know how to preach jesus if you believe you end up in heaven. if you don't go to hell. what other way.

should i have priests in order to get them to feel some sort of condemnation so that they can know that they are need of a savior just to preach jesus as a king is i don't know why i don't see that not attractive but i don't see it as appealing, especially to the person who's trying to. maybe we trying to save them.

hopefully yeah well you know it's it's true we have. i know i was raised in an evangelistic church. i did it personally dances me mom is in my preteens and in my teens and i know that you know i was always taught you know you got to get these people feel guilty first in may and it's really up to god to make them feel guilty. it may be that god will use you to point out to something something in their life that sinful. we don't really see the apostle doing that necessarily all the time either meant i was really surprised one year when is teaching through acts that i came to acts chapter 10 when peter's preaching the house of cornelius.

cornelius is an unbeliever. he does know about jesus. he's a pig. in fact, he is a god-fearing pagan, but he does know jesus and and peter comes in and i had always been told you when you get a golden opportunity preach like that you go until people are sinners, so that they'll know they need to repent. peter didn't mention the guys said peter just said i you know i used to think badly about people like you may be in a jew and you been a gentile basis got to show me that he has is not a respecter of persons, and anyone in any nation who does what is right is acceptable to him. that's just the opposite of how i would've talked an unbeliever. i don't you know going to an unbeliever and tell him you know if your heart is right. forgot with god. he he accepts that. not that your savior still you get saved, but he accepts the fact that you're seeking him is that's a good thing. now i believe what i mean just if you just read the sermons in the book of acts that paul preached and peter preached your concern outlined the kind of things they included and and being amazed at the things they didn't include and it was the holy spirit convicted, the people of sin. you know, on the day of pentecost. in mentioning that heaven or hell or the afterlife. he didn't even really mentioning that the judgment what he did as he preach the jews and said this jesus that you crucified god raised him up because he is the messiah. well what people need to know what what the apostles preached is that there is another king when jesus appears that god has appointed jesus to be the ruler of all and that all people are expected to submit to him now i when the apostles preached that apparently people were able to put together 2+2 = 4. god is made jesus the king.

i've done nothing in my life that honors him as a king are probably among i'm on bad terms with them that know if if you if there's a king over you, and you've lived your life in rebellion against him, then you're like you had for prison or something. you got your lawbreaker, your rental, your defector, you gone awol and and so i mean anyone who you know that the holy spirit is convicting would drive. i would think phil convicted by that you know all the times that i've been convicted of things i've done a lot of times you just had to point out to me that jesus said you shouldn't do that and and i realize well he did didn't do that, you know, in other words, there's not very many times when anyone coming to me and telling me not getting it's punished for my sins, would necessarily have a great impact on because i don't think very much about the atheists you mentioned atheist and believe in the afterlife.

i mean when you say if you don't believe in jesus you go to hell, but you can go to heaven. that doesn't have much impact on because they don't believe there's a heaven or hell. but but the way the gospel is preached in the bible it would have an impact on them if they believed it, of course, and that is that there is a king. there's a king and you're supposed to be following this post will be a king, and if you don't obey him well i guess he's the one you answer to for that and now i'm not sick i'm not saying you could never tell you heaven or hell. i'm just saying we don't have an example of the apostles ever doing it but but that doesn't mean it can never happen. there might be time. some people are asking further questions or whatever you can tell them what heaven and hell. but the point is the message that we have is not a message about the afterlife.

the message we have for the world the gospel is the good news of the kingdom of god which is that jesus is the king and that he's calling all people be subjects of him, and failure to do so.

of course has consequences. though the apostles never really spell those out in the sermons so it's it's kind a slightly different was a considerably different emphasis. of course, there's every reason to let people know if you're curious about heaven and hell. but this only really appeals to the self-interest of something that's partly what you're kind of thinking, how come. people are converted.

if i don't appeal or self-interest. well, that's at the apostles never did appeal to their self-interest. they said let's talk about god's interests. you have been did god has the right to have obedience from you. god has made you god brought you he owns you. he has every right to be pleased in your actions and and you owe him something. now this doesn't really appeal to their self-interest, but to god's rights.

it appeals or conscience. in other words, it appeals the conscience rather than self-interest. if you preach heaven and hell, you might have gotten my convicted consciously like it saved me lots of people have been saved with that kind of preaching is not in biblical times, but you know the conviction comes from realizing that you all got something and you been ripping them off all your life that and think about that very seriously.

realize i really better stop doing if they don't want to stop doing that and you only get them to convert because you say you go to hell, then you're not really converting them because we need to convert them from his life and self-interest of sin, you need to convert them from being into themselves to be next in christ in god.

and so some people just something about him interested in god on his terms. but that's predicate go much further on this, but i do have a chapter on that in my book about the three views of how i do have a chapter about the role of helen preaching the gospel be of use to you. i need take a break here. you're listening to the narrow path, we have another half-hour coming up. don't go away. we are listener supported. you can find out help help help us down the air by going to our website. the narrow path.com. i'll be back in 30 seconds. tell your family to everyone you know about the bible radio show that has nothing to send everything to give you the narrow path granted when today's radio show with your social need and send a link to the narrow path.com, one can find free time on your teaching blog article teachings and archives of the narrow path radio shows and tell them to listen live right here on the radio. thank you for sharing. listener supported the narrow path. greg broadcast my name is steve greg and were live for another half-hour taking your calls if you would like to ask a questions about the bible of the christian faith got to talk about those things or you can scald to disagree. some people do the number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 michael from texas internet scholar michael, welcome to the neuropathic for calling. i think the two previous players their questions and i really appreciate your comments on that very pertinent also to get your opinion on the state of education united states and particularly public education. in my opinion it beyond reform and i think christians should separate themselves from that and then the second question related to that is so alternatives to the public education system are seen to be out of reach of most people, particularly now that both parents feel compelled to work and so homeschooling is different, very difficult for families to deal to do that and then also if they want to private education. they know that it extent that and then also in both of those scenarios i feel lot of schools and homeschool curriculums that count classical christian curriculum and i'd like to get your opinion on that. i went to parochial school and high school was modeled sort of on the classical education and so in particular we had to take latin had four years of latin.

all that was there and i think there are some admirable things about that curriculum. certainly there's a certain rigor studying latin that makes you a better writer and there's also some aesthetic and artistic qualities of latin better questions of record as far as public education goes i should say that my children were all raised between 25 and and 10 or more years ago.

they finish school and they were homeschooled. we didn't want to entrust our kids to to the public schools and in fact we didn't want to trust them to private school who just want to train ourselves and we had a single income. my wife stayed home with the kids and taught them and and i had a very low income we had some some generous situations given to us for housing and so forth and made it possible for us but we would've we would've adjusted our lifestyle to our income in order to be able to still have one income and let my kids be homeschooled. that's how much we felt against syndicates public school knowing we knew people at that time who did send their kids to public school order christian school and her kids turned out okay and you know, in many cases the schools were fairly conservative, or at least they had teachers who were many christians are good people and yet today the public schools.

even if you got christian teachers you gotta curriculum. that's crazy and that you're in texas i don't know.

it's like they're here in california it's it's grossly immoral curriculum for young kids and then of course there's the whole fact that the kids are being taught what they need to know they're not being taught academics have not been taught history are not being taught math well and and so unite if you have a wonderful godly teacher list. the system is stacked against christianity having nowadays of course try to drive immoral notions and to have the kids from the earliest times of their lives.

and i just wouldn't trust my kids to.

i think people need to decide whether priorities are. you know what if they could get by with one car a smaller house a lot less goodies and toys and have one pert parent stay home and homeschool the kids you i don't know what could be more important than your kids and with reference, because nothing is more important than their souls. i mean, my kids grew up in a poor home, but we may never new report.

we never had much know or care. they had everything they wanted. we needed but i mean it when you when you raise kids in the public school are comparing their close with the close of our kids the toys they have the gimmicks gadgets assuming that they have with those of other kids and and raising their discontent raises your cost of living to shift keep up with those kids. i just think that's i think it's a throw your money down the hall and starter kit souls on the it's a crap shoot for them in on the roulette wheel so i'm i'm not a big fan of public schooling again i will say that some people's kids have gone through publix when they turned out fine and some people homeschool their kids didn't turn out fine so you and i can guarantee anything, but it seems to me like it so like if you're investing somebody else's money for them as a steward, you may make an investment doesn't turn out to pay off very well, but if it was the wisest and most godly investment you knew to make then you can at least have a clear conscience about and you know you you're investing your kids you're giving your kids for a short time.

some of listeners have young kids. it seems like they'll have kids for the rest their lives well. it's amazing how fast the time comes from. the kids are not in your life anymore and where the main thing you wish. especially when you're old and alone thing you wish most that you spent more time with the kids and the time when they were available is the time you ship them off to be trained by you know assistant that hates your values and saw me. i don't really understand why a person would live as cheaply as possible. i would live in a trailer park homeschool my kids rather than ship them off or have somebody else reason for me entering the port. that's me. other people of different values. i'm not sure why but they do that's between the dog and her kids as far as the classical education i we didn't we didn't use the classic i think what worries her kids.

it wasn't as big a deal as it is now i think is a great idea. i think classical education is good it's it's intellectually rigorous and i think that it makes people make kids more sharper think you need to develop their brains and when the young and i think a good rigorous course of study that makes them hard thinkers and diligent students is a very good thing for them when they tell because there's only one that i have afflicted is the use pagan classical authors with the curriculum and think that's extremely ungodly people you know and what they were. paul paul quoted roman pagans and greek pregnancy. he called his preaching. he was educated in his district. do he was raised in viruses home and yet he obviously was educated in the classics of the romans and the greeks. i think that i don't think that reading roman and greek classics will turn you into a pagan because i think everybody knows that those are myths and roses as mythology. as far as the philosophy again if a parent is the educator they can see where something that their kid may need to read might have something in it that their kid made its maximum accretion expo. so, i mean ii would i wouldn't be i'm not.

i'm not overly concerned about that part. what about the fact that it takes so long to become proficient in an up language like latin, and it's not useful. this poorest comparison to modern foreign languages, like spanish or french.

i think having a latin-based.

i think heavenly basis of latin makes a lot easier. learn other romance languages. i would think. i studied latin for four years and i was barely getting proficient enough to understand the classical authors had studied spanish down here in texas. i'd have much more opportunity to speak.

i wish i had spy. we should learn spanish to i can learn latin i learned german in high school but i learned very well all i can say is i think that latin learning latin probably is very good for the mind. i think it gives you a lot of understanding of english as so many of our words come from latin, and if so deftly a basis for italian and portuguese and spanish and french and so forth.

if you will, a ghost and i think that they could go after somebody has learned from latin with young.

most of most people my age didn't even start learning foreign language to high school or junior high school. i would think that a person could be personal beef finished with four years of lot before their junior high school and then they could stay spanish or something else to probably find it easier those me. that's somewhat theoretical. Don't know latin or spanish but like to sorry.

i wouldn't mind if i been taught to be good for me and spent time in comerica and i found it more useful but i guess that's a little bit high.

well insured useful is more useful for latin modern speaking, to be sure. all right mike, i appreciate your call. thank you for the jobless.

you all right talk to lois from my fountain hills, arizona. we have some lines open. if your interest is a good time to get through. the number is 844-484-5737 any questions about the bible or the christian faith, feel free to give me a call and we'll talk to about them at this number 844-484-5737 lois, welcome to the neural pathways for calling you taking my call and i can about the campbell been doing self-study on that and i'm just really confused. i think there were two i know what happened to solomon and paul wright, and i know what happened to hear it.

in between there.

my boss told me that when geronimo came back to see your lady architecture that middle right i want to know what happened to that temple know that they were set on fire. he was not only actually there were only two temples as the robles temple was the second temple in herod's temple was the same temple in ours. here zerubbabel's temple never got destroyed and when herod came along. herod embellished herod was a great builder and he made lots of buildings, but he turned the jewish temple into one of the seven wonders of the world to make it more ornate, more fabulous in the days of zerubbabel when the exiles returned from babbling. they had a lot of zeal, but they didn't have much money and didn't have a lot of manpower solely they were able to replace solomon's temple, which had been burned down 70 years earlier with quite the same kind of template and have the resources so they built an inferior smaller template wasn't anywhere near as impressive, but that temple never went away until course in 70 a.d. it was burned out, but had become what we think of is herod's temple with them because zerubbabel his little cracker box temple that he built was greatly embellished by herod, so that is herod's temple was destroyed in 70 a.d. so there's been only two actual temples. it's just that the second temple started out small and was later added to both temples. actually, it's interesting on the same calendar day, both temples were destroyed over 500 years apart from each other for 600 part in 586 bc. the babylonians were down solomon's temple, and in 70 a.d. the romans burned down herod's temple or zerubbabel/herod's temple and end of them amazing thing is, both of them happened on the same calendar day which is either huge coincidence or god making a statement about the destruction of some of solomon's temple invited bc took almost the same as described almost the same words as the destruction of the temple 70 a.d. it's like it's like 70 was just a repeat of the first temple went down a certain way. the second temple went down very similarly probable temple. i heard that they had signed back to probable. i thought it was my well, this story of zerubbabel is in the book of ezra. the first is the first six or eight chapters. i guess of as our six i guess are about zerubbabel ezra didn't build the temple came back and he just sort of reform the jewish religion because it was beginning to be compromised in his time.

he was later than zerubbabel and then and then nehemiah came in he didn't build the temple either but help build this wall of the city, which had been burned all so so the second temple was actually built by zerubbabel under his leadership here saying a much smaller temple happened to it until erin built on that right. and even that didn't destroyed it just improved, but then it was it was the whole thing was destroyed in 75 declared that god bless you. all right, kent, from bermuda. welcome to the narrow path, how you doing steve long, good well but i have a question about bible translation. i recall on your website.

when the elections of something was on the website but i can't seem to find it, but dealt with detectives receptors and yet a set of documents and you compared to both and you talked about the no on that her bible translation philosophy if it so what would you like right now i need to find out their website they couldn't find it so yeah honestly i'm not 100% sure where i discussed in hundreds of lectures there, but expected to be found in the lecture series called the authority of scripture and in lecture number 15 that series. the lecture notes tools for biblical study and bladder that lectures retire about what kind of english translation of the bible is desirable and i talk about those things. there are also targets mother more study tools but god sites if you go to the authority of scripture series okay lecture number 15 i think will probably cover that for you. i haven't taught that for a long time. i have an event series was long, very old book and expect find okay thank you very much.

sure all right let's talk to james from san diego james welcome to the narrow path. thanks for calling your weight on bible.

what does and we lois.

i have a lot of people heard that godliness is no no i do not send in poor richard's almanac benjamin franklin yet. there's a couple of sayings that people often think on the bottle. one of them is god helps those who help themselves and the other is cleanliness is next to godliness, and neither of them are actually in the bible and i think they're both from poor richard's almanac.

i remember my grandfather about that wants measurement teams and he insisted that cleanliness is next dollars was in the bible and the context was ii look like a hippie and help me reform myself to be more like you in line with the bible, but i told i told him what fortis is not there and he said no.

it's really very notes in there somewhere, but no, i i've read the bible through very many times and it's not okay and and what makes the light happiest cleaning how well you know that well. mclean. cleanliness is a blessing and a person who has administrative keeping things clean, doing what your ministry is is is next to godliness. so for her. you don't need a bible verse, said yeah that makes you happy to work out and i enjoy the benefit of my wife likes to keep things going to be sexy employee mean to you guys.

you know all right. thanks james you all right. our next color is maryland from westmoreland, michigan, maryland. welcome to the narrow path hello hi hi in the bible somewhere in the bible but somewhere where jesus is talking to peter any thou art peter, and upon this rock i will build my church.

it's matthew solemnly, he comes. he also said to the disciples who so ever since she became there retained whose whoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven and i don't understand that and what he was saying to them with you making them fast so now that whoever sins you retain or retain whoever sins, remembering, and that's actually from john chapter 20, but it's a very safe very similar to something jesus said when he said you are peter, and upon this rock of the church because he said i'm to give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven whatsoever. you bind on earth will not write what you loose on earth relisted habits is trying to sound and i don't understand. okay, sure. and in this matter of binding on earth and binding in heaven, and so forth. jesus made this statement twice, once he made it to peter seemingly peter alone and that's in matthew 1619, and then he said it to all the apostles together in matthew 1818 so couple chapters later the meaning of binding and loosing has very much been. i think confused by certain people.

some people think this means that were is giving us the ability to bind demons or something like that or to loose angels to various tasks over that's i think a mistake. we never read of that kind of activity been done by jesus or anyone else binding and loosing was a term that the disciples would've understood rather easily because it was in common usage in their synagogues and in the teaching of the rabbis to bind an activity was to forbid it to loose an activity was to permit it and that's how the rabbis talk and sometimes rabbis differed over something like, is it lawful to wear a wooden leg on the sabbath present during the burdens that products have now if if rabbi shammai permitted it and rabbi hillel did not permit it. then we would say that rabbi hillel found wearing a wooden leg on the sabbath and shammai loosed wearing a wooden leg as he allowed it or didn't want to bind and loose.

that's how they use that term. that's how the disciples would've understood and jesus is talking to them. i believe as the future leaders of the church, the ones who will in fact besetting the norms for the church and he's telling them that they will be the ones that the church will look to for knowing what's permitted what's not.

they'll do the binding and loosing of of things now. unfortunately, most of our translation say what serve you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loose and i recently read a book by an author who mistakenly thought this means that we bind things and on earth or in our loose things on earth.

and god responds by doing so in heaven. actually, the greek tents of both of these verses. matthew 1619 and matthew 1818, it actually should read and and some translations say this in the margin. like the niv, i think, has it in a footnote but it actually should be translated whatsoever. you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven. what if you loose on earth will will have been loosed in heaven.

what that means is that in heaven. some things are already boundless as god. god has decided in heaven. what is permissible. what's not what should be allowed which should not be allowed the apostles on earth will bind on earth what has been bound in heaven, and they will loose on earth what has been loosed and that is to say they will reap, they will communicate god's directives to the church.

whatever is permitted or not permitted that they teach will have to be the things that god in heaven has permitted or not permitted already. you're not innovating the apostles not innovating things that god has to tag along with with their decisions. if the opposite heaven makes the decisions and the apostles were the ones are to be communicating those decisions to the church and binding and loosing activities that need to be forbidden permitted. that's what that expression would mean to those in the jewish context and in the pool so ever since she you forgive their that's kind of an extension of that. well maybe maybe that's a slightly different ideas that i mean that's in john chapter 20 when jesus rose from the dead, he breathed on them and said receive the holy spirit. they said who's a resend you remit their maiden who services you retain there retained. this is a much more difficult statement to make good sense of the roman catholics believe this truth, this is the place where the apostles actually given the right to forgive sins or not, and that the they believe the bishops that succeeded the apostles throughout history, the catholic bishops are in the possession of that authority and that they can ordain priests to forgive or not forgive sins of so that this whole passage is used by the catholics to to defend the ability of priests to say you're forgiven or not that's what you confessed to previously tells you how many candle slider. how many hail marys to say before you be forgiven. that's the date they take this verse as they are giving the apostles and, therefore, in their opinion, by extension, the catholic leadership the right to forgive or not forgive sins. now i don't believe in that. i don't believe in the catholic leadership doing that paul may have given authority like that to the apostles themselves. he doesn't sing about their successors if they had any doing so, but the apostles were unique in history and they did have unique authority to do things i don't think it was just matter you could just walk to forgive sins they would mean they just want to forgive every since i've been nice to do but i think what it one way, this is understood, especially by evangelicals frequently is that he's saying the forgiveness of sins to the world is in your hands. the world will be forgiven if you minister forgiveness to that is if you preach the gospel forgiveness that they need to hear the gospel in order to be forgiven and you're the one who preached to them and so you know if you, as it were, by preaching the gospel, forgive their sins, that is to say you give them there. ever since forgiven if they respond gospel well and they will be forgiven. but if you don't if you don't priests forgiveness of sins will then people sins will be forgiven. so evangelicals often take it to mean something like the apostles were commissioned to preach forgiveness not just unilaterally give forgiveness. another possibility is that while i don't have the authority to forgive your sins. in general, if you sin against me. i certainly have the authority forgive you for that i can release stephen when his father do not leave this sin to their charge.

i believe that there was a valid sin against him, and although they be held account for others and 60%. please expunge this one from the record and i think that if we forget people's may be saying that they will be forgiven by god to i'm out of town i wish to explore this a little more but i just have a mafia 10 seconds eliciting the narrow path, we are listener supported the righteous at the narrow path, po box 1732 macula ca 92593 or go to the website.

the narrow path let's talk in the mock election


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime