The Narrow Path 9/25

Music Good afternoon and welcome to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour each week afternoon with an open phone line for you to call if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or if you have a different view from that of the host you'd like to bring up. I will say the lines are usually open, but they're full right now, but they're open. There will be lines opening up in the course of the next hour. And if you're interested in joining us, you can't call right now because you get a busy signal, but have this number ready. Call back in a little while and you may find a line has opened up. The number is 844-484-5737.

That's 844-484-5737. And I want to remind our listeners in Arizona that next Tuesday night, I will be speaking in the Phoenix area in Buckeye actually. So that's Tuesday night. And then the following night, I'm speaking in Tucson. And if you're interested in any of those gatherings, either of them, you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com.

Look under announcements and you'll see the time and place of those gatherings. Love to see you there. That's next Tuesday night in the Phoenix area.

Really, Buckeye. And Wednesday night in Tucson. Now, a few days later, as we approach the weekend next weekend, I'll be in Texas and I'll be speaking in the San Antonio area next weekend in Spring Branch, Texas. Then later on in the week, I'll be in Houston. I'll be speaking in Houston and also in Dallas before the end of the week. Next week or so, probably next couple weeks, I'll be in Arizona and in Texas. After that, I'm going further east to Arkansas and Missouri and Illinois and Indiana. And I'll be speaking those places, too. So if you live in any of those areas and are interested in joining us, go to thenarrowpath.com.

Click the tab that says announcements and you'll find that itinerary there in times and places. Love to meet some of you if I have not before. And I'm looking forward to seeing you there. Looking forward to seeing, again, people that I have met before. Let's talk to Bob from Bellevue, Washington.

Bob, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Thank you, Steve.

Good afternoon to you. I have a question and a comment. My question has to do with the disciples named James, who are called apostles. James, son of Zebedee, and then James, son of Alphaeus.

That's pronounced right. But anyway, there's another James in there called James the Less, who was mentioned always with his mother, wife of Clopas, and she and James the Less were, according to Mark, or Matthew, anyway, one of them, at the cross when Jesus was crucified. My question seems to be, what is James the apostle, son of Alphaeus, regarded as the same as James the Less? And if so, then in looking at church history writings, two in particular. Eusebius says that the fellow named Hegesippus, who died in 180 AD, says that Clopas, who was married to the sister of Mary, the mother of our Lord, was a brother of Joseph, making Mary of Clopas a sister-in-law to Mary, mother of Jesus, and her kids would be cousins. The other thing I mentioned is James, Joseph, Simon, Jude, and Alphaeus.

But it doesn't seem to jive with other instances. I know that Catholics will say that Joseph had other children, perhaps older or older than Jesus. From a previous marriage.

Yeah, from a previous marriage. And of course, there's nothing biblical in that. I was just wondering what your thoughts were on this, because it does say that James and Joseph, Simon, Jude, and sister or sisters, they use the term, the Greek word for brother, not cousin.

And I'm just wondering what your thought was on that. Well, first of all, there's a lot of confusion about some of the characters about whom very little is said. Some of them, we only know them from their names appearing in various lists, and some of them have the same names as other people, which is very common. We know this from secular research, that there were a very large number of men in the days of Jesus in Palestine, for example, named Simon. Simon, in fact, was the most common name among men in that generation. And we see that there's a lot of Simons in the New Testament. We also know of a lot of Simons that are not in the New Testament from that same period. James was also a very common name.

Of course, it's the form of the word Jacob, and Jacob was a very important person. So it's not surprising there were a lot of Jameses, a lot of Simons, and some other names, too. Jude, or Judas in the Greek form, there were quite a few Judas. In fact, there were two Judas among the apostles, among the 12. There were two Jameses, and there were two Simons. Even among the 12, there were two that were named Simon, there were two that were named Jude, and there were two that were named James. Now, James, the son of Alphaeus, is generally understood to be the same as James the Less.

Now, there may be others who have other theories, and perhaps there's room for other theories, because we have very little data on him. But it would appear, for example, we believe that Thaddeus was also named Lebius because of certain lists. And he was also called Judas, not Iscariot. So we've got three different names in the list for the same guy.

At least it's believed to be the same guy. Likewise, Bartholomew is on the list, but he's thought to be the same as Nathanael, who's mentioned in John, though not mentioned to be one of the 12. So guys had different names. Matthew is also called Levi in the narrative.

So it gets very confusing when, first of all, there's a number of people with the same name, and then there's sometimes a number of names of the same person. But from studying out the Gospels, I follow pretty much the main line on this, that James the Less is the same as the James the son of Alphaeus. Now, he may have been a first cousin of Jesus. We know that the sons of Zebedee were. The sons of Zebedee, their mother was a sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. So we know that James and John, the sons of Zebedee, they were first cousins of Jesus. And then James the Less may also have been as well. It's hard to sort all those things out, but your question seems to be about the Roman Catholic idea that these people who are said in the New Testament to be called the brothers of Jesus are really cousins of Jesus or maybe half brothers.

The Catholic Church has suggested more than one thing. One is that Joseph did have other children from a marriage that had ended in the death of his wife, and so when he married Mary, there were these older sons already in the family before Jesus was even born. That's not impossible, but there's nothing in the Bible to support it. Likewise, Roman Catholics have sometimes had a different theory, and that is that the word brothers, adelphi, in the Greek is a generic term for relatives, and that can be. In the Bible, sometimes people who are not siblings are called brothers because they are close relatives, and the word brother is used in a non-literal way.

For example, when Abraham and Lot were having problems among themselves in, I think it's the 13th chapter of Genesis. It says, Abraham said to Lot, let's not have any striving between you and me or our herdsmen because we're brothers. Well, they weren't brothers. Abraham was his uncle, but they were relatives, and so the word brothers sometimes means relatives. So Roman Catholics will say sometimes that when it talks about Jesus' brothers and his sisters, that this is referring to simply relations, not siblings. While that is not impossible, we don't know of any specific case elsewhere where first cousins are called brothers in the Bible, and there was another word in the Greek language for cousins. In fact, Barnabas was apparently the cousin of Mark and is referred to as such. So there are other more specific names for more specific designations of relationship besides the generic for brothers. So what I'd say is there's a possibility that brothers could be used in order to suggest relatives of some other close kinship that are not siblings. But it'd be the unusual use in the New Testament.

We don't know of any other case like that. So I think the simplest thing would be to say that these brothers were actually half brothers of Jesus in that Mary and Joseph had more children after Jesus was born. Jesus is referred to as Mary's firstborn. In Luke chapter 2, he is referred to as her firstborn. And in the last verse of Matthew chapter 1, Jesus is referred to as her firstborn in some manuscripts. Some manuscripts do not have the word firstborn in the last verse of Matthew chapter 1, but some do. But at least in Luke, he is referred to as Mary's firstborn. So now some would say, well, that doesn't mean she had other children because firstborn was a kind of a privileged title and so forth in a family. And it spoke of primogeniture and authority over the other children and so forth, whether they were other children or not. The firstborn was the heir. And so they would say, calling Jesus the firstborn doesn't mean there were others. But I think that's a pretty weak argument. I think that if he was the only child Mary ever had, there'd be no real reason to refer to him as her firstborn in those places. So I think and it does say in the end of Matthew chapter 1 that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until she had brought forth her son, Jesus.

So it suggests that afterward they had normal relations and there's no reason they couldn't have children together. So that'd be my answer to those those issues. All right. Let's talk to Paul from Buena Vista, Colorado.

Paul, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Hi, Steve. Yeah, thanks for taking my call.

I just heard yesterday. Well, are you familiar with Dave Hocking out of California? Sure.

Yeah, because he's a dispensationalist and I listen to him on a daily basis. And and so my question, you know, I kind of what I'm doing is just kind of gathering information. Because I never really studied this out completely.

Don't really always have that much time on my hands. But so what is the subject? The subject is all millennialism. OK, because the comment was made in his program by himself today that there are a lot of guys that are now switching over to being all millennials rather than dispensationalists or pre-tribbers because of what's going on in the world right now. I thought that was quite a statement.

I was like, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Oh, you mean he's saying there's a lot of people that can post tribulation ists rather than pre tribulation. Is that what he's saying? Yes, I'm sorry.

Thank you. OK, because all millennial, all millennial is not the same thing as as that. I mean, while it is true and all millennials will be post trip, probably most people who describe themselves as post tribulation, we still pre millennial. You know, when dispensationalists tell us that pre millennialism or they would even say dispensationalism was the view of the early church, they're wrong in saying that it was the view of the that dispensationalism was. But they are correct that many of the early church fathers were pre millennial.

They just weren't dispensationalists. And one of the biggest differences between the two is dispensationalists who are pre millennial also believe in a pre trib rapture. But the historic pre millennialist, some of the church fathers, they believed in a future millennium, but not in a pre trib rapture. So usually if someone is called post trib, it's distinguishing their view of the rapture, not of the millennium. So I don't know what he said. I don't know if he used the word all millennialist or not. But it sounds to me that whether he did or not, he's saying that some people who used to be pre trib are now post trib because of things going on right now, which I, which I, which I assume means I assume that means that they think maybe we're in the tribulation. I don't believe is the case.

Yeah. Yeah, I don't believe. Well, if we were coming into it, you could still be pre trib. You know, I mean, pre trib just says that the rapture will take place and take the church out before the tribulation begins.

If we haven't come into it yet, then I guess their view hasn't been proven wrong yet. And a pre tribber could believe that the tribulation is coming on and that will be raptured very soon. I'm not pre trib, of course. I'm not even pre millennial.

But that would be that would be a strange decision to make. I mean, if I had if I had biblical grounds for being pre trib, then nothing that's happening in the world today would change my mind, because frankly, I don't I don't change my mind on theology by worldly circumstances, but rather by what the Bible says. Now, if a pre tribber actually studied the Bible somewhat more thoroughly and decided that the Bible does not teach a pre trib rapture, then they might come to the conclusion that the tribulation is upon us and that we'll be going through it. It's to my mind, it's interesting if he's right, that anyone who was pre trib would change their mind because it looks like the tribulation is coming, because you shouldn't be pre trib unless you think that's what the Bible teaches. And if you think that's what the Bible teaches, then none of the current events in the world should change what the Bible teaches.

The Bible teaches what it teaches. So I had a feeling that he's saying there's a lot of pre-tribbers who'd never had a good biblical reason for being pre trib. Steve, your mind is like a steel trap.

It's a compliment. I'm fascinated by your ability to deduce time frame scenarios. I mean, even in the discussion you just had about the name, you know, James and the name of that guy would listen to it going.

This guy is so into details. I can't hardly I can't hardly hang with you. But I probably bore a lot of people with that, I'm sure.

Well, yes and no. But see, my my problem is when you're talking and you're your mind is moving so fast that mind can't keep up. I mean, I had a stroke about three years ago and I'm 64 years old and I'm doing the best I can to follow what you're saying. And so what I'm getting is let me see if I got this right. The the there's a difference between being all millennial and pre-trib tribulation.

Well, let me let me make it as clear as I can. There's three three views about that, if you don't mind. Yeah, there's three views about the millennium. One is pre pre-millennialism.

This is the view that Jesus will come back before the millennium. So they believe that's not what you are. That's not what I am anymore.

I was I was like so many other people before I examined. OK, OK, that's OK. Go ahead. So let me go.

Let me go forward here. There are people who believe Jesus will come back before the millennium and therefore he'll come up and establish the millennial kingdom. That's pre-millennialism. They believe in a pre-millennial return of Christ. There's also post-millennialism. They believe that Jesus will come back after the millennium.

They believe there'll be a thousand years of peace and justice and righteousness on earth established through the power of the gospel prevailing. And Jesus will not come back until the end of that. That's post-millennialism. So they believe in a post-millennial or after the millennium return of Christ. Amillennialism is the view that the whole idea of a thousand year reign is missing the point that Revelation 20, which speaks of that thousand years, is using symbolic language and that it represents the long period. Not just not a thousand year, literally, but a very long period between the first and second coming of Christ so that we're actually living in that period of time.

That's the Amillennial view. And that was the view of the church through almost all of history. And in the first few centuries, there were some pre-millennialists, but not dispensational. See, dispensationalism is a form of pre-millennialism. Certainly dispensationalists believe Jesus will come back and establish a millennial kingdom. But dispensationalism arose around the 1830s and it added something that was never in pre-millennialism before. And that was the pre-trib rapture that the church will leave here seven years before the end and the tribulation will fill that gap. So the idea of a pre-trib rapture is strictly dispensationalism. And it's a form of pre-millennialism because both dispensationalists and other pre-millennialists believe there will be a millennial kingdom after Jesus comes back. But the historic pre-millennialists, that is the ones who believed in a future millennium in the early church, did not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. So dispensational pre-millennialism is distinguished from historic pre-millennialism. And so that's my, I guess, my short course on the terminology of the millennium.

I'm a millennial, but I don't have time to go into this more because I have so many callers waiting. You do say that you have a hard time following the speed I'm talking. I don't blame you. I do, too. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. But, you know, I speak fast because there's so many calls waiting and because it takes a long time to say it.

But I will say this. You can always go back and hear it again. You can either go back to our website or our app, which is thenarrowpath.com, where all the programs are archived. You can listen to it. You can slow it down. Or there's another website called Matthew713.com, which actually you can find the actual call, your call. If you look up probably the subject pre-trib or something like that, you can actually listen to your call. You can listen to it over and over again.

And it's all free, of course. So if I go by it too fast the first time, you can go by it a little after the program and hear it as slowly as you might need to. I appreciate your call, brother. Let's talk to Tom from Tacoma, Washington. Tom, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Thank you for taking my call. We're going to be studying in a Bible study next Sunday the 23rd chapter of Isaiah. And everything goes OK until the last two verses. Isaiah had prophesied against Tyre, as you know, and for 70 years they were going to be sort of forgotten. And in verse 17, according to the American Standard Version of the Bible, it says that at the end of 70 years, the Lord will restore Tyre and she will go back into business, prostituting herself with the kingdoms of the world throughout the earth. And then what I'm stumped on is the prostituting, whether this is just kind of a bad translation, because in verse, the last verse, it says, but her profits and wages will be dedicated to the Lord.

They will not be stored or saved, for the profit will go to those who live in the Lord's presence to provide with them with ample food and sacred clothing. And it seems like there's something missing between the two verses. And I've gone back and on YouTube listened to some sermons and the pastors who did these sermons were saying that Tyre fell back into sin, didn't learn their lesson during the 70 years.

But to me, it sounds like the prostitute herself primarily is trying to sell herself, trying to say hustle to get business from the other countries. And so that's my question is, and I know Isaiah used poetry in his prophecies and stuff, and I just wonder if that's a prostitute herself is actually, she was actually sinning because the very next verse says she was doing the will of God and said God had restored her. Well, yeah, this is talking about a judgment coming upon Tyre either. It's either referring to the judgment when, you know, Babylon came and conquered that whole land. And then 70 years later, Babylon was conquered by the Persians.

And so all the captives were released. That's how Israel became or Judah became a nation again. As by after 70 years, God brought them back from Babylon. Or this could even be talking about an earlier judgment on Tyre, which was of Sennacherib, who was the Assyrian over a century earlier than the Babylonian exile.

He attacked, well, I don't really know. I don't know the exact years when Tyre was attacked, but it could be that it's talking about a 70-year period where they may have suffered under the Assyrians. Whenever I see 70 years in this kind of context, I usually think of it as the Babylonian exile, and it could well be. When they came back from Babylon or when they were restored, they still were corrupt and prostituting themselves. Now, prostituting themselves just means compromising with comfortlessness. It's a figure of speech. Like when Israel worshipped other gods other than God, they practiced idolatry.

That was called prostituting themselves or playing the whore. It's a figure of speech. Paul said twice in Ephesians 5-5 and Colossians 3-5 that covetousness, or love of money, is idolatry. It's being an idolater, which is in the Old Testament like a foreign educator, spiritually speaking.

So there's a number of ways that this can be looked at. The main thing it seems he's saying is that there's a judgment coming on Tyre, and it'll be a significant one, but after a period of time, 70 years, they will be restored, but they will be corrupt again, and they'll make money again. Now, it's when it says their money will be given over to the people of God.

I'm not sure exactly how that's to be understood. It could be just saying in general that like all sinful nations, this one will come to nothing because Tyre has been destroyed after the Babylonian exile by Alexander the Great in the early 4th century B.C., so it's like a couple centuries after Babylon. But to say it'd be given for food and clothing and so forth to the righteous, this could be figuratively said that all the wealth of the nations eventually will be inherited by God's people.

When they inherit the world, Jesus said, Blessed are the meek, they shall inherit the earth. So it's possible it's talking about just in general that although the wicked do become prosperous, God ultimately judges them, and eventually everything they've gained will be turned over to God's people. It's even possible that it could be talking about when Alexander the Great conquered Tyre finally, that shortly after that, he elevated the Jewish people because he was impressed by the prophecies about himself and their prophet Daniel, and he elevated the Jewish people, made them governors of his provinces and so forth. It could be saying that what Alexander took from Tyre, much of that prophet ended up in the hands of the Jews.

Not all of it, certainly, but some of it could have, which seemed rather unlikely, and the prophet may mention it just as something God would work out. There are definitely ambiguities in the passage. The general idea is that evil Tyre will be judged. They will apparently not learn their lesson. Once they've been judged, they'll come back to their own wickedness, but they'll be judged again, and their prophets will eventually go to the righteous. And it could be, as I say, a number of ways that could be understood. It is true, Isaiah often speaks symbolically and in poetry, so it's kind of difficult to know how to press the literal in some cases.

I think this is one of those cases, but I did suggest a couple of possibilities. I'm out of time, though, for this call. I appreciate your calling. Thank you. It's my pleasure. Thank you for calling. We take a break at this point.

We have another 30 minutes ahead. Don't go away. You're listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener-supported. You can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com, or access any of our resources for free or to donate, if you wish, thenarrowpath.com. We'll be right back in 30 seconds, so don't go away.

Welcome back to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg, and we're live for another half hour taking your calls. Once again, our lines are full, but if you want to call in a few minutes, you may find a line has opened up.

They do. The number to call is 844-484-5737. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or a different viewpoint from the host you'd like to discuss, call this number, 844-484-5737. Our next caller today is Paul from Kansas City, Missouri. Hey, Paul. Good to hear from you again. Long time no hear. Yes, good to talk to you again, Steve. Hope you're doing well. Thank you. We're doing fine. Good, good, good. I'm looking forward to you coming out this way. I know you're coming out to Winona, but that might be a little bit of a stretch.

I know. It's like a few hours from you, I think, isn't it? Yeah, about four hours, but we look forward to seeing you again soon some other time, I'm sure. A couple quick questions, because I know you've got other people in mind. I've been listening to some assembly choir, really enjoying it. Some of the feelings I've got about the home church kind of idea, I'm still kind of pondering it, but anyways, my question is this. After Stalag succession, is the term, after Stalag fathers, from I guess the Catholic ninth, are the Stalag fathers and bishops and popes, are they all synonymous for the same term? And my second question would be, I guess Ignatius wrote, seven letters before they had taken them to Rome to grab a mark, that they should listen to the bishop. And my thought is, maybe at that time, because of St.

This and some other heretical teachers, it maybe was in the mind of Ignatius saying that possibly there could be some serious problems with just the teachings that were going around that time and their concern for that, and that kind of moved towards that kind of a political type of structure. Anyways, I'll let you answer those two questions, and yeah, anyways, take care, buddy. Okay, thank you, Paul. Good talking to you.

I'll address that. The Roman Catholics do talk about apostolic succession, and by that they mean that when the apostles died, there was another generation of bishops waiting to kind of step into their role. And when those men died, the next generation of bishops stepped into that role and so forth.

Every generation, a group of bishops stepped into the role that had been held by the apostles so that every generation had some men who were like the apostles. And the Roman Catholic Church teaches that that's who the bishops are of the Roman Church, that the Roman Catholic Church, the bishops are the successors, going back 2,000 years, to the apostolic office, and that the pope, who is the bishop of Rome, is the successor to Peter himself, whom they believe had priority over all the other apostles. There's no evidence in the Bible that he did, but they believe he had priority over the other apostles and therefore the bishop of Rome. They say Peter was a bishop of Rome.

Again, there's no evidence in the Bible of that either. But they say Peter is the bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter's position. And since Peter had priority over the other apostles, the bishop of Rome has priority over all the bishops of the church.

All of this is based on several assumptions, none of which are found in the Bible and some of which seem to be disproven in the Bible. For example, the belief that Peter was the bishop of Rome at the beginning. When Paul wrote the book of Romans, the church had been there for over a decade, and Peter was not yet there because Peter, even after the founding of the church of Rome, was still in Jerusalem at the Jerusalem Council in Acts chapter 15. And when Paul wrote to the Roman church, he greeted, oh, what, 20 people or more who he knew in Rome, said hello to them. He didn't even greet Peter, which would be a strange thing if Peter was in fact the bishop of that church. The biblical evidence is that Peter wasn't even in Rome during the time of the book of Acts.

He may have come there afterward. But he wasn't the founder of the church of Rome, nor do we have any evidence he's the bishop of Rome. So this is the Catholic teaching. Now, who were the church fathers? Were they the same as these apostolic successors?

Well, some of them probably would be, but the church fathers is a term just used for Christian leaders and spokesmen in the first few centuries after the apostles who left something in writing for us. Some of them were bishops. You mentioned Ignatius. He was a bishop of Antioch, as I recall. And Irenaeus was a bishop.

And there were several. A lot of these church fathers were bishops. But also there were some that were not bishops. I mean, Justin Martyr was not a bishop.

Tertullian was not a bishop. And so the church fathers are not principally or exclusively bishops. They were simply defenders of the faith or vocal spokesmen for the church in their day. Some of them held church office.

Some did not. And so the term church fathers is not exactly synonymous with the term apostolic successor. Some of them certainly would be probably considered to be successors in the mind of the Catholic Church. The Bible never indicates that the apostles would have any successors. And, of course, Judas hanged himself and the apostles chose a replacement for him. That's because he left office. But when James, the brother of John, was killed, another apostle, in Acts Chapter 12, no one succeeded him.

They didn't replace him. Because an apostle who dies faithful remains an apostle. There's 12 foundations of the city of God and each one has the name of one of the 12 apostles.

That's a permanent structure. There's not going to be any more than 12 of those guys. And so when Judas left, he gave up his position and was replaced.

So there would be 12 again. But when James died, they didn't replace him. And certainly the church in Rome, I don't think they can identify 12 bishops that are successors of the 12 men. They have hundreds of bishops, thousands probably. And so I don't know why they think that that somehow makes a direct succession from the apostles.

I wouldn't think so. Now Ignatius did say that the church should submit to the bishop. And he didn't want people to baptize or get married or take communion or do almost anything without the bishop present. And you asked, is that possibly because there were some false doctrines around and the bishop had to oversee?

Well, possibly so. The reason that Ignatius gave for this was that the churches tended to be divided and they needed the bishop to kind of standardize their teaching. And that probably the division could be because of false teachers that were bringing in deviations from apostolic teaching. But it's interesting that in the days of Ignatius, which is about 115 A.D., just probably a generation after the death of the apostles. And at that time, he speaks of there being a bishop of the church, whereas in the New Testament, every church had multiple bishops. They were also called elders. The word bishop, which sounds to us like a clerical office in the Greek, it simply means overseer. There are people who were like overseers of the church. They didn't have clerical office as far as we know they might have, but there's no evidence of it. They were just people who oversaw the church. They were also called elders. They were the older Christian men who were qualified to be models and teachers of the church. But there's no evidence that they held clerical titles or that the church was, you know, shaped in that way with that kind of authority.

That evolved in the days of Ignatius and beyond, I'm sure. All right. We need to go back to the phones and talk to Erica from San Francisco. Erica, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Hi, Steve. Thank you so much for your show. I just enjoy it every day that I have to drive to work.

I listen to you. I just have two simple questions. The first one is, are you going to be coming to Northern California? And the second one is the chase link to donate. Is that more reliable than the Paypal because you have spoken about Paypal not giving you the donation several weeks back. So I'll take it off the air. I thank you for your show and I just pray that God bless you immensely. Thank you.

Thank you for your call. As far as the links at the website, we did have some problems with Paypal a few months back. They were, for reasons undisclosed, just decided not to give us any of the money that people were donating there. But we cleared that up.

We dealt with them at some length. And now the Paypal link at the website is working just fine now, I believe, last I heard, and for some time now. So if you're accustomed to using Paypal, feel free to use it, too, if you want to donate. But as far as me coming to Northern California, I don't have any trips to Northern California planned in the foreseeable future. I will be in Oregon in Albany and Salem area for about three days in October. I think the 20th through the 22nd of October, I'll be in Oregon. We'll say more about that later as we get closer to that date. But I will not be in Northern California in any dates that I know of at this point. I'm going to be, of course, going eastward for about a 30-day trip. So we will schedule something in Oregon when the flames die down.

In Northern California, Oregon, we're going before the flames die down, probably. Anyway, I will always announce on the air if I've got an upcoming date someplace. So thank you for asking. Let's talk to Cheryl from Orange County, California. Cheryl, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Hi, Steve. I have heard it often said that Jesus' ministry was three and a half years long. Could you walk me through the signposts that show us that timeline? Yeah, we don't actually have anywhere in the Bible that tells us exactly how long Jesus' ministry was. But three and a half years is calculated from the fact that we know of four specific Passovers in Jesus' ministry.

Let me put it this way. We know of three. We know of three Passovers in Jesus' ministry. He died on a Passover, so that happened once a year as the Passover was yearly. So we have the Passover He died, and the Passover before that, which was a year earlier, and another Passover earlier still, which makes at least two years. Now, Jesus' ministry did not begin on a Passover, but some months earlier than the first mentioned Passover. So some would say, well, we have documentation for two and a half years.

But what about the third year? Well, there's another feast in John 5, verse 1 that does not say it's a Passover. But quite a lot of scholars believe it probably was a Passover. If it was, then there were four known Passovers in the ministry of Jesus. So if He began His ministry a few months before the first of them, then by the time the second one came, it had been a year and a half. The third Passover would then be two and a half years, and the fourth Passover would be three and a half years. Now, we don't know for sure if that John 5 feast was a Passover or not, but it could well be, and it may be even probable, though there are other feasts of the Jews that obviously it could refer to. But there's an interesting parable that Jesus told that might point to a three and a half year ministry of Jesus.

In Luke 13, verses 6 through 9, it says in Luke 13, He said, He spoke another parable. A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. Then he said to the keeper of the vineyard, Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Why does it cut it down?

Why does it use up the ground? But he answered and said to him, Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. And if it bears fruit, well, if not, after that you can cut it down. Now, the fig tree and the vineyard both are common images in both the Old and the New Testament for Israel. But the fruitless fig tree that needs to be cut down is a not-too-veiled reference to the threat of God destroying Israel because of their unfruitfulness. This was discussed in many places in the Old Testament, especially Isaiah 5, but also in some of Jesus' parables, that Israel is supposed to be bearing fruit for God and He's not getting any fruit out of it.

Eventually He's going to just destroy it. So this parable seems to be of that ilk that it's talking about Israel as a fruitless fig tree. The owner, which would be God, the Father, says to the caretaker, which is Jesus probably, Hey, the last three years I've gotten nothing out of this tree. Let's just cut it down. And the caretaker says, Well, let's give it just this season as well.

And if it doesn't work out, then we'll give up on it. So it suggests that Jesus' ministry may have at that time been going on for three years trying to find fruit and get fruit from Israel. And they hadn't produced any, but a portion of another year would be given to it to see how it does. And that's probably a cryptic reference to the whole time that Jesus spent trying to wring some spiritual fruit out of that apostate nation. And there's three years plus the months that He begs for. That'd be like a three and a half year ministry.

Many people think it's referring to that. There's also, of course, the 70 weeks of Daniel and the 70th week in particular is like all the weeks is seven years long. And the Messiah in the 70th week is said to, in the midst of the week, put an end to the sacrificial system, which Jesus did when He died. And so to suggest He died in the middle of the week, that'd be three, you know, roughly three and a half years after He began that week, which would be at His baptism. Now, that's a very controversial interpretation, but it's widespread.

It's just not as widespread as the dispensational one. But the idea is if Jesus died in the middle of the 70th week, which is, I think, the most responsible interpretation of Daniel 9, 26 and 27, then it would be in the middle of a seven year period, which would be roughly three and a half years. So we got these hints. We don't have anything that specifically says Jesus' ministry was precisely 42 months or three and a half years. But there are things in there that might point that direction.

And if if the unnamed feast in John 5, 1 was a Passover, then that gives us approximately three and a half years also. That makes a whole lot of sense. Thank you, Steve. OK, thank you for your call. God bless you. All right. Our next caller is Cindy from Compton, California.

Hi, Cindy. Welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Thank you.

Thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to point to our Lord and Savior, Jesus. And I always had a question about two verses.

It's on 316. And then I don't. The other the other verse, I don't know offhand, but it says that you do well to believe even the things believe. That's James chapter two. And I'll take my answer on.

OK, OK. So you're saying there's believe seems to be used in two different senses because John 316 says whoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life. And I was her believes in Jesus will be saved. And yet in James Chapter two, James is talking to people who say they have faith in Jesus.

He says, well, you say you believe in God and that's good. But even the demons believe and tremble, he says, indicating that, well, the way you believe may not be any better than the way the demons do. And they certainly not saved. So the real question is, do you believe in the way that saves a person or do you believe in a way that's not really any different than the way the demons believe? Because they certainly believe in Jesus.

They but they don't believe in a way that saves them. So there's clearly reference to a saving faith and to a not saving faith. In fact, that passage in James two begins, I think it's I'm not sure. I think it's verse 14. I'm not looking at it right now, but it begins by saying if a man has faith.

But does not have works. Can faith save him? Implying, no, it cannot, because it's not the right kind of faith. It's not a saving faith. Paul also spoke about the same thing James did in Galatians five, six.

Paul said in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything at all, but a faith that works through love. So Paul says what saves a person is a faith that works through love. James said, yeah, it's got to be a faith that has that's accompanied by works. It's not a faith that is generated by works and it's not a salvation that is the reward of works. It's salvation is the reward of faith.

Whoever believes in him. But it's got to be the kind of belief that changes something. The devil believes it doesn't change him. The demons believe it. They still act the same way as if they didn't believe.

So, in other words, what James and Paul both say, and certainly Jesus said the same thing when he said, Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and you don't do the things that I say? In other words, Jesus, Paul, James, you name it, anyone in the Bible who talks about the subject, indicates that though we're saved by faith, it has to be a faith that makes a difference in our lives. If it doesn't change you, then it's of it's not the right kind of faith. The demons have a faith that doesn't change them and it doesn't save them either. If you have a faith that doesn't change you, it won't save you either because it's not the right species. It's not the right kind of faith. There's a lot of different kinds of believing stuff.

But just believing certain facts has never saved anybody. It's trusting in God, believing, having a relationship of trust and faithfulness with God. That's that's what faith is. That's a saving faith like Abraham's faith. If you read in Romans four at the end of the of that chapter, it talks about Abraham's faith and how it totally transformed his whole life. And therefore, Paul says, and because it did, therefore it was counted him for righteousness. In other words, his faith was counted for righteousness because it fit the description of faith that Paul describes. And it was a life changing faith that changed his whole direction in life, changed his whole self-definition, it changed his whole destiny. It was everything about it.

Everything about it was changed. Even he left his father's home and moved to another country. His whole life was transformed by his faith in God. And he says, and therefore it was accounted him for righteousness. And that's not just that's not saying that you're saved because you believe and because you do things. No, you're saved because you believe. But but you have to believe in such a way that's different than the way the devil believes. Or else you're no better off than the devil when it comes to salvation. Your salvation has to be like Abraham's faith, not like the devil's faith. And that's what Jesus pointed out to the Jews in John Chapter eight. He said, I know you're Abraham's descendants, but if you were Abraham's true children, you would do the works of Abraham.

You'd be like him. But he says, you're like your father, the devil. And so what he's saying is you can have a faith like Abraham's, in which case you're his true children. And it's what saves a person like it saved Abraham. But if you have a different kind of life that resembles the devil's life, well, then you don't have a faith that saves.

So that would be, you know, the difference in the different kinds of faith of which the Bible speaks. Carolyn from Black Diamond, Washington, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Oh, thank you. My Bible study has just started a five week course with Doug Pollock, P O L L O C K. Two questions here. What do you know of him? And the second question, how do you look up someone and find out things about them? I went to Lighthouse Trails for a start.

They have a very full, comprehensive website. Couldn't find a thing on him. Really? Lighthouse Trails, is that his ministry? No, no.

I was trying to check on him. Oh, I see. Oh, I see.

So is Lighthouse Trails that one that kind of evaluates teachers or something? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I wonder what they say about me. Well, it might not be good.

Yeah. Well, I'm not familiar with him. I don't know if I've even ever heard his name, so I can't tell you what I think about him. But what I do or what I'm trying to learn about someone, I usually I usually don't go to these Christian cult busters type sites because a lot of times they'll they'll label somebody a cultist just because he doesn't hold their theology about something. And so I want to see what he has to say.

You know, I want to weigh it. And so I'll look up his name online and I'll see if there's anything that's like a bio or if he has a ministry website where it talks about what he believes. That's why I'd look first. And, you know, if what he says seems biblical enough or if he even disagrees with me on something, but it seems harmless enough that I don't think badly of him, but I don't know him. I don't know his name.

OK, I'd suggest you just Google it. I hesitate to do that because if you look up Andy Stanley, well, everything he's a great guy, great guy. But he just went off the rails so badly. Well, what you can do, what you can do when you Google somebody's name like that, you should read what they say about themselves or what at least what favorable people say about them. And then also look at the critics because you'll find both.

I mean, that's what's going to come up. You can find, you know, so and so heretic or something. But that's by somebody who thinks he's a heretic. Read their read their criticism. See if see if they're criticizing him on the basis of a narrow viewpoint of their own. Or if he really has some dangerous doctrines.

But you should also hear him, too. Remember what Nicodemus said to the Jews when they were they were behind Jesus back. They were saying negative things about him. He said he says, does our law condemn a man before it hears what he has to say? You know, and a lot of times I've known some teachers that, you know, I didn't necessarily agree with everything they said, but I didn't think they were dangerous.

I think they're relatively harmless. And yet I'll see other groups, you know, cult buster groups that just, you know, they rail him as a heretic and so forth. So I I'd rather hear him and and and his critics.

Let's hear both sides. I haven't looked him up, but you could do that. Yeah, I will. Thank you. Thank you so much. OK, Carolyn, thank you for your call. God bless you. Jason from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling.

Hi, Steve. I was wondering how you could force somebody to believe that the Bible is the word of God. I don't think you can force anyone to believe anything. People will not believe what they don't want to believe. You could show them. I mean, you could prove anything you want to them. If they don't want to believe it, they won't believe it.

They'll explain it away. Now, if you're talking about to somebody who is objective and interested in truth and they don't just have an ax to grind, but they really are curious to know if the Bible is credible. There's lots of things you can do.

I mean, you can. There's lots of websites that have information. I have I have lectures on the subject of the reliability of scriptures. I talk about the archaeological evidence, the fulfillment of prophecy, the secular historians of the period who said things that were confirmatory.

I mean, there's lots. All all you really need to do is to research Jesus the same way you'd research any historical character and see what evidence there is for him. And then you can decide is he someone you should believe it or not. Of course, we have to remember that the four gospels are very strongly part of the data. We have to consider him in the gospels. And I think a lot of skeptics, they say, well, no, I can't trust what the gospels say because they're in the Bible.

And I think, well, where where else would they be? I mean, they they weren't written as part of the Bible. None of the books of the Bible were written as the Bible. They are all separate books. There's like 66 books written separate places, separate times by different authors and and floating around in circulation as individual books for hundreds of years.

And then someone put them together into a collection, just like we might today if they were floating around. So, I mean, the four gospels are not they weren't written as part of a Bible. They were written as historical biographies by people and in three cases, people who knew Jesus.

And in the in the fourth case, which is Luke, by someone who traveled with the apostles and who knew them and interviewed them and got his information from right from the horse's mouth. So, I mean, the research into Jesus can never be considered to be objective or thorough unless it includes a consideration of what's in the gospels. But there's lots of proofs of the Bible. I shouldn't say proofs. I should say evidences, because you can't prove anything. Finally, to someone who has to make a decision of whether they're willing to follow the evidence. Unfortunately, there's a great number of skeptics who are not the least bit interested in following the evidence, but they're very interested in debunking the Bible. But if you're interested in the evidence, I have a lecture at the website.

There's a series called The Authority of Scripture, and I have quite a few lectures there that show the evidence for the Bible being true. I'd suggest you go there. TheNarrowPath.com. If you'd like to donate to us, we're out of time for today. You can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or go to our website, TheNarrowPath.com. Have a good weekend. Let's talk again Monday.