Share This Episode
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg Logo

The Narrow Path 9/25

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg
The Truth Network Radio
September 25, 2020 8:00 am

The Narrow Path 9/25

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg

On-Demand NEW!

This broadcaster has 144 show archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

September 25, 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
Truth for Life
Alistair Begg
In Touch
Charles Stanley
A New Beginning
Greg Laurie
In Touch
Charles Stanley
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg

Losing good afternoon and welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast Steve Greg were live for an hour each week afternoon with an open phone line.

If you call if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or if you have a different view from from that of the holes you like to bring up. I will say the lines are usually open, but their full right now but 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 to get a busy signal but have this number ready call back in a little while you may find a line is opened up the numbers 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 in the Phoenix area and Buckeye actually. So that's Tuesday night and then note the following night. I'm speaking in Tucson and if you're interested in any of those gatherings at either of them. You can go to our website. The narrow look under announcements and you'll see the time and place of those gatherings led to see their that's next Tuesday night in the Phoenix area really Buckeye and Wednesday night in Tucson now. A few days later is reports that we can next week and 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 speaking in Houston and also in Dallas before the end of the week so over the 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 in Illinois and Indiana and I'll be speaking those places to. So if you live in any of those areas are interested in joining us go to the narrow click the tab. This is announcements and you'll find that itinerary.

There are times and places love to meet some of you if I have not before, and I'm looking forward seeing again people that I have met before. I talked to Bob from Bellevue, Washington Bob, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling.

Good afternoon to you I have a question on my question has to do with the disciples named James who are called apostles James son of Zebedee had been James of son of Althea's spouse right but anyway there's another James in there called James the less who's mentioned always with his mother, wife of cultist and she and James alas were courting Mark Matthew at the cross. When Jesus was crucified. My question seems to be what is is James the apostle song's I regarded as the same as James the less and so then in looking at church history writings.

Two in particular, Eusebius says that the fellow name had just set those who died in 180 A.D., says that Clovis who was married to the sister of Mary, mother of our Lord was a brother of Joses making Marriott focus sister in law to marry mother Jesus and her kids would be cousins and their mentioned is James Jones and Simon Jude and Adele PS but it doesn't seem to jive with other instances. I know that Catholics will say that Joseph had other children. Perhaps older folders from a previous marriage. Yet from a previous marriage. In the course that there's nothing biblical and that I was just wondering what your thoughts were on this because it does say that James and Jonas Joseph Simon Jude and sister are sisters.

They use the term Greek word for brother not just wondering know what you thought was well first of all there's a lot of confusion about some of the characters about 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 though there were very large number of men in the days of Jesus in Palestine. For example, named Simon Simon in fact was the most most common name among men in that generation, and we see that there's a lot assignments in the New Testament. We also know a lot of assignments that are not in the New Testament from that same. James was also very common in the course of said form of the word, Jacob, and Jacob was very important person.

So this is not surprising that a lot of Jameses a lot of Simonson and some other names to Jude or Judas in the Greek form. There are quite a few Jude's vector to Jude's among the apostles among the 12 thereto, Jameses, and there were two assignments that even among the 12 thereto. The rename Simon. There were two. The name Jude and thereto that were named James, now James the son of Althea's is generally understood be the same as James the less.

Now there maybe others have other series, and perhaps there's room for other theories because the we have very little data on them, but it would appear, for example, we believe Thaddeus was also named Levy's because of certain lists and he was also called Judas, not Iscariot so we've got in three different names in the list for the same guy. At least it's believed to be the same guy like Risa Bartholomew is on the list but he's thought to be the same as Nathaniel, who's mentioned John though not mentioned to be one of the 12. So guys had different names. Matthew was also called Levi in the narrative, so it gets very confusing when first of all, is a number of people of the same name. And then there is 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 Althea's 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 was a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, so we know that James and and John the sons of Zebedee they were first cousins of Jesus and the end and James the less may also have been as well is hard to sort of those things up.

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. If the Catholic Church has suggested more than one thing. One is that 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 born. That's not impossible. There's nothing in the Bible to support it. Likewise, Roman Catholics have sometimes had a different. That is, that the word brothers adult fly 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 that were brother is used in a nonliteral way. For example, when Abraham and and lot were having problems among themselves in that I think it's the 13th chapter of Genesis. It says that Abram said to Lot, let's not have a striving between you and me are Kurtzman because were brothers. While there they were brothers.

Abram was his uncle. But they were relatives and so the word brothers sometimes means relatives so Roman Catholics will say sometimes it when it talks of Jesus brothers and sisters that this is referring to simply relations not siblings. While that is not impossible.

It's 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 inside Barnabas was apparently the cousin of Mark and is referred to as such. So there. There are other more specific names for Morse specific designations of relationship size. The generic for brothers.

So what I 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 be the unusual use in the New Testament we don't we don't know of any other case like that, so I think the simplest thing would be to say that that these brothers were actually half-brothers of Jesus and that Mary and Joseph had more children after Jesus was born it. 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 manuscript so many scripts do not have the word firstborn in the last verse of chapter 1, but some do that, at least in Luke. He is referred to as Mary's firstborn so now some would say well that's not done that doesn't mean she had other children because firstborn was outcome the privilege, title, and so forth in the family and and it spoke of primogeniture and and authority over the other children and so forth. Whether there were other children not the first one was the air and and so he would say calling Jesus the firstborn doesn't mean there were others, but I think that's pretty weak argument. I think that if he was the only child. Mary ever had there been no real reason to refer to him as her firstborn, and in those places so I think 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 sought suggested afterward. They had normal relations and there's no reason they couldn't have children so I be my answer to those those issues are this talk to Paul from Boerner Vista Colorado Paul. Welcome to the neuropathic for calling. I yeah my call.

I just heard yesterday what you familiar with Dave talking to California sure could hear the distant facelift and I listened to him on a daily and so my question no I cannot. What I'm doing this kind gathering information that I never really felt completely don't really always have that much time in my hand. But what is the subject.

What is the almost okay because the comment was made in this program by himself today that there are a lot of guys that are now switching over to being our millennial rather than facelift or retrievers because of what's going on in the world right now. I thought that was quite a state. I would like will all you mean he's saying there's a post tribulation lists rather than pre-tribulation, so that what you say yes. I'm sorry okay okay because all millennial all millennial is not the same thing as is that I mean while it is true in all millennial's will be post trip. Probably most people who describe themselves as post tribulation suite still pre-millennial you know when dispensations tell us that our premillennialism or they would even say dispensations was the view of the early church there wrong in saying that it was the view of the that dispensations was but they are correct that many of the early church fathers were premillennial, they just want dispensations and one of the biggest differences between the two is dispensations who are pre-millennial also believe in a pretrip rapture, but the historic premillennialism of the church fathers. They believed in future to a millennium, but not in a pretrip rapture so usually if someone is called pulse trip. It's distinguishing their view of the rapture not of the millennium, so I don't know what he said I don't want to use the word all millennial's are not but it sounds to me whether he did or not, he's saying that some people who used to be pretrip are now posted because of things going on right now, which I which I assume any and I assume that means that they think maybe were in the tribulation will I don't believe this is guy. I don't believe well if we are coming into it. You could still be pretrip.

You know pretrip just says that the rapture will take place and take the church up before the tribulation begins. If we haven't come into it yet that I guess their view has been proven wrong and a pretrip could believe that the tribulation is coming on and it will be rapture very soon. I'm not pretrip. Of course I'm not in premillennial but that would be that would be a strange decision to make a mean if I had five biblical grounds for being pretrip then nothing is happening. It was, it 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 pretrip or actually studied the Bible somewhat more thoroughly and decided that the Bible does not teach a pretrip rapture than they might come to the conclusion that tribulation is upon us and that will be going through it. It's enter into my mind. It's interesting if he's right that anyone who was pretrip would change their mind because it looks like the tribulations coming because you shouldn't be pretrip unless you think that's what the Bible teaches. If you think that's what the Bible teaches that none of the current events in the world should change with the Bible teaches. The Bible teach us what it teaches. So I had a feeling that he is laying out there's a lot of preachers who never had a good difficult reason for being pretrip.

Your mind will trap the complement fascinated by your ability to do timeframe scenarios that mean even had about the name game. The name of God go into details. I can hardly I can hardly angle you probably bore a lot of people is that I'm sure well yes and no, Mike. My problem is when you're talking your mind will pass that mind can't keep up and I had a stroke about three years ago and I'm wearing a gold and I'm doing the best I can do it take to follow what you're saying. I do what I'm getting it if I got this right. The there's a difference between being all millennial and pretrip tribulation limit limit.

Make it as clear as I can. There's three of the three is about it. There's three views about the millennium. One is pretty premillennialism.

This is the view that Jesus will come back before the millennium so that length of treatment that not what you are. That's not what I am anymore. I was I was like so many other people before he examined by the sun.

So let me go for there are people who believe Jesus come back before the millennium and therefore he'll come up and establish the millennial kingdom. That's premillennialism. They believe a pre-millennial return of Christ. There's also pulse millennial's, and they believe that Jesus will come back after the millennium. They believe there 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 pulse millennialism so I believe enough post millennial or after the millennium return of Christ.

Millennialism is the view that the whole idea of a thousand year reign is son missing the point that Revelation 20, which speaks of that thousand years is using symbolic language and that it represents the long.

Not just not a thousand year literally but in a very long. Between the first and second coming of Christ, so that we are actually living in that period of time. That's the all millennial view and that was the view of the church from almost all of history in the first few centuries there were some premillennialists but not dispensations. The dispensationalism is a form of premillennialism certainly dispensations believe Jesus will come back and establish a millennial kingdom, but dispensationalism arose and around the 1830s and and it added something that was never in premillennialism horror that was the pretrip rapture that the church should leave here seven years before the end and and tribulation will fill that gap. So the idea of a pretrip rapture is strictly dispensationalism and it's a form of premillennialism because both dispensationalism and other premillennialists believe there will be a millennial kingdom after Jesus comes back, but the historic premillennialists that is the ones who believe in future millennium in the early church did not believe in a pretrip relation rapture so dispensational premillennialism is distinguished from historic premillennialism and so that's that's my guess. My short course on the terminology of the millennium.

I'm all millennial and I don't have time to go into this more because I've; is waiting you do say that you have a hard time following the speed I'm talking I don't I don't blame you I do to send because I get ahead of myself but you know I ice the peak faster somebody calls waiting, and because there's takes on terms that but I will say this, you can always go back and hear it again.

You can either go back to our website or app which is the narrow for all the programs are archived. You can listen to slow it down orders another website called Matthew which actually you can find the actual call.

Your call. If you look up probably the subject pretrip or something like that you can actually listen to your colleague Alyssa over and over again and salt free. Of course, so, so if you if I go by too fast the first time, you can go by a little, you have to program and here it is slowly as is.

Mike might need to. I appreciate your call brother. Let's talk to Tom from Tacoma, Washington, welcome to the neuropathic circling whole in Bible study Sunday the 23rd chapter of Isaiah and goes okay until the light versus head pops out against as you know and and for 70 years they were going to be gotten in verse 17, according to the American Standard version Bible it says that at the end of 70 years. The Lord will restore tar and she will go back to business prostitute herself with the kingdoms of the world throughout the earth and then back but when I'm stumped on the prosecuting. This is discounting a bad translation because in verse the life verse it said profits and wages will be dedicated to the Lord. They will not be stored are saved for the profit will go to those who Leo in the Lord's presence divide with them with ample food and cyclic quality, and it seems like there's something missing between the two verses and I've gone back in and on YouTube.

Listen to sermons and the pastors who did the sermons withstand that power back in the sand learn a lesson during the 70 years, and that it sounds like the prostitute herself primarily is trying to sell herself kinds site parcel to get business from the other country. And so that's my question is used tree in the prophecy. But I just wonder thank prostitute herself is actually that she was actually swimming because the next very next verse that she was doing the will of God that God had reached the order. Well yeah this is talking about a judgment coming upon tire either. It's either referring to the judgment when babbling came and conquered that whole land than 70 years later, a baboon is conquered by the Persians and so all the captives were released.

It's how Israel became her Judah became a nation again, despite after 70 years, God brought them back babbling or this could even be talking about an earlier judgment on tire which was of sin accurate.

Who is the Assyrian over a century earlier than the Babylonian exile he attacked well and I don't really know.

I don't know the exact years when tire was attacked but they could be that it is a seven year period where they may have suffered under the Assyrians. Whenever I see 70 years in this kind of penance. I usually think it is the Babylonian exile. It could well be when they came back from Babylon or when they restored and they still were corrupt and prostituting themselves now prostitute themselves. This means compromising wit with covetousness as it's a it's a figure of speech like when Israel worshiped other gods other than God with a price I documents called prostituting themselves or playing the horror and it's a figure of speech, and you know Paul said twice in Ephesians 55 and Colossians 35 that covetousness or love of money is idolatry.

It's been idolater which is in the Old Testament like a fornicator spiritually speaking.

So there's a number of ways that this can be looked at. The main thing. It seems he saying is that there's a judgment coming on tire and it will load it will be a significant one, but after a period of time 70 years they will be restored, but they will be corrupt again. Now at once and then make money again. Now it's one says their money will be given over to you know the people of God. I'm not sure exactly how that's to be understood and it could be just saying in general that like all sinful nations. This one will come to nothing tire has been destroyed as the start destroyed after battling Exabyte Alexander the great in the early late Fortner early early fourth century BC. That's like a couple centuries after babbling, but let's say be given for food, clothing, self-worth to the righteous. This could be figuratively said that you know that all the wealth of the nation's eventually will be inherited by God's people when they inherit the world. Jesus said blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, so it's possible is talking about just in general that although the wicked do become prosperous God ultimately judges them and eventually everything they've gave the turnover to God's people.

It's even possible that it could be talking about when Alexander the great conquered tire. Finally that shortly after that, he elevated the Jewish people because he was impressed by the prophecies about himself in their prophet Daniel and he elevated the Jewish people made them governors as provinces self-worth that could be saying that you know when Alexander took from tire much of that profit ended up in the hands of the Jews, not all of it, certainly, but some of it could have which seems rather unlikely in the profit may mention it just as something that's something God would work out. There's there are definitely ambiguities in the passage. The general idea is that evil tire will be judged. They will apparently not learned their lesson once they been judge they'll come back to their own wickedness, but judged again and their profits will eventually go to the righteous and could be as a sacred number of ways that could be understood that it is true I said often speaks symbolically and in poetry, so it's difficult to know how to press the literal and some cases I think this is one of those cases, but I did suggest a couple possibilities.

I'm out of time though for this call. I appreciate talking is my pleasure. Thank you for calling. We take a break. At this point. Live another 30 minutes ahead. Don't go away listening to the narrow path, we are listener supported. You can go to our website. The narrow to access any of our resources for free or to donate.

If you wish. The narrow

I'll be back in 30 seconds going small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to welcome you to nothing to tell you everything in today's media show is over, we invite you to visit the narrow we'll find time to change blog article verse by verse teachings in the archives of learn and enjoy the thank you for supporting the listener supported narrow path if Greg back to the narrow path.

My name is Steve Greg and were alive for another half hour taking your calls. Once again our lives are full but if you want to call it. If you initially find a line has opened up. They do the number to call is 844-484-5737 if you have questions about the Bible and the Christian faith or a different viewpoint from the house 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 secular divine stretch two hours from you I think is the amount of time am sure that I am I required really bad about the session And I and part time in my second question I remarked that just kidding around that time.

And that's the kind that kind of type of structure question that okay thank you Paul, good talking.

I'll address that the Roman Catholics do talk of apostolic succession. And by that they mean that when the apostles died. There was another generation of bishops waiting to come to step into their role when those men died the next generation bishops stepped in 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 2000 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 is no evidence in the Bible that he did but they believe 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 the bottle 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 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 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 is 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. When Paul wrote to the Roman church.

He greeted all 120 people or more who he knew in Rome said hello to him. He did immigrate Peter which be a strange thing Peter was in fact the bishop of the church.

The biblical evidences that Peter wasn't even in Rome during the time of the book of acts he may have come there afterward, but that he wasn't the founder of the church, Rome, nor do we have any evidence is the Bishop from so these are this is the Catholic teaching out. Who were the church fathers within the same as his apostolic successors. Well, some of them probably would be, but the church fathers is a term issues for Christian leaders and spokesmen in the first few centuries after the apostles who left something in writing for some of them were bishops mentioned Ignatius he was a Bishop of Antioch. As I recall and you Irenaeus was a Bishop and there were several a lot of these church fathers were bishops, but also there were some that were not Bishop Simon Justin Martyr was not Bishop to Chile and was not a bishop and so the church fathers are not principally are or are exclusively bishops.

They were simply defenders of the faith or you vocal spokesman for the church in their day. Some of them held church office and did not and so the term church fathers is not exactly synonymous with the term apostolic successors, some of them certainly would be probably considered to be successors in this in the mind of the of the Catholic Church. The Bible never indicates that the apostles would have any successors and course. Judas hanged himself and the apostles chose a replacement for him because he left office, but when James the brother of John was killed.

Another possible and accepted.

12 no one succeeded him they didn't replace him because an apostle dies faithful remains an apostle.

His office, there's 12.

The foundations of the city of God, and each one has the name of one of the 12 apostles to permanent structure is not to be a more than 12 of those guys and so when Judas left he gave up his position and was replaced so there be 12 again, but when when James and I didn't replace him. And certainly the church of Rome. I don't think they can identify 12 bishops that are successors of the 12 men just hundreds Bishop thousands probably. And so I don't know why they didn't think that that somehow makes or directs succession from the apostles I went. Except 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 in the Bishop had oversee what possibly so of the reason that Ignatius gave this was that the churches tend to be divided and they needed Bishop to kinda standardize their teaching and that probably the division could be because of false teachers are bringing in deviations from episode teaching, but it's interesting that in the days of Ignatius which is not 115 A.D. just probably generation of the death of the apostles and at that time.

He speaks of them in a Bishop of the church where as in the New Testament. Every church had multiple bishops that there are also called elders that were Bishop, which sounds just 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.

They were just people who oversaw the church. They were also called elders. Older Christian men who were qualified to be models and teachers of the church, but there's no evidence that they held clerical titles. The church was shaped in that way. With that kind of authority that the event evolved in the days of Ignatius and 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 Recalling okay and 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 decide not to give us any money that people are donating their but we cleared that up. We we dealt with them at some length and and now the PayPal link is 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 to if you want to donate but as far as becoming a Northern California. I don't have any trips to Northern California. It landed 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 22 October.

I'll be in Oregon and will 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 that this point time to be of course going eastward for about 30 day trip, so I we will will schedule something organic and when we when the flames died down and I met on the ninth Northern California and Oregon were going before the flames died on probably.

Anyway, now anything I will always announce on the air you know if I got an upcoming dates and place of IQ for asking. Let's talk to Cheryl from Orange County, California.

Cheryl looking to the neuropathic for calling Street last 3 1/2 years long to get me through the sellers timeline yet we don't actually have anywhere in the Bible tells us exactly how long Jesus ministry was but 3 1/2 years is calculated from the fact that we know of four specific Passover's in Jesus ministry are limited to Serino three. We know three Passover's injuries measure.

He died on the Passover so that that happened once the years the Passover. It was yearly so we we have that the Passover he died in the Passover before that which was a year earlier and the Passover 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 mention Passover. So, some would say will have documentation for 2 1/2 years old at the third year. Well, there's another feast in John chapter 5 verse one that does not say it's a Passover button quite a lot of scholars believe it probably was a Passover if it was then, there were four known Passover's 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 and been a year and 1/2.

The third Passover then be to have years and in the fourth Passover would be 3 1/2 years now.

We don't know for sure if that John five feast was a Passover not, it could it could well be in it may be improbable, though there are other feast of the Jews that obviously it could refer to. But there's an interesting parable that Jesus told that might point to a 3 1/2 year ministry of Jesus in Luke 13, verses six through nine 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. 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 in the vineyard.

Both are common images in both the old and the New Testament for Israel and to find a fruitless fig tree that need to be cut down is not to veiled reference to the threat of God destroying Israel because of their unfruitful as this is discussed in many places in the Old Testament, especially Isaiah 5 and but also in some Jesus parables that the Israelites must be bearing fruit for God is not getting any fruit out of it eventually is going to destroy it. So this parable seems to be of of that ilk that determine Israel as a fruitless fig tree in that the owner which we God the father says to the caretaker which is Jesus probably the last three years I got nothing out of his tree.

Let's just cut it down and the caretakers as well. Let's give it just this season as well.

And if it doesn't work out then will give up on so it suggests that Jesus ministry may have at that time been going on for three years trying to find fruit and get fruit for Israel, and they haven't produced a bit of a portion of another year would be given to her to see how it does and that's probably a cryptic reference to the whole time that Jesus spent trying to ring some spiritual fruit out of that apostate nation and the others of three years plus the months that he begs for not be like a three and half year ministry. Many people think it's referring to that. There is also of course the 70 weeks of Daniel and the 70th week and particulars like like all the weeks is seven years long and the Messiah in the 70th week is said to in the midst of the week putting into the sacrificial system which Jesus did when he died. And so to suggest he died in the middle of the week every three roughly 3 and half years after he began that week, which is the is baptism and that's a very controversial interpretation is widespread. This is not as widespread as the dispense dispensational, but the ideas if Jesus died in the middle of the 70th week which I think the most responsible interpretation of Daniel 926 and 27, then it would be in the middle of the seven-year period which you be roughly 3 nephew, so we got these hints without having that specifically says Jesus ministry was precisely 42 months or three and half years, but there are things in there that might point that direction.

And if if the unnamed feast. In John 51 was a Passover, then that gives us approximately three and half years. Also, okay, thank you for your call all right or next caller is Cindy from Compton, California hi city, welcome to the neuropathic for calling all my might and I will three and then I tell yet the other.

I don't know that you do and that it's just not English, and I think my aunt John okay okay so you're saying there's believe seems to be using 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 and check James chapter 2, James is talking. People who say they have faith in Jesus. He says well you you say you believe in God and that's good. But even the demons believe and Trembley says in indicating that well the way you believe may not be any better than the way the demons to and what 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 different than the way the demons believe because they certainly believe in Jesus date but they don't believe in a way that saves them so others can clearly reference to a saving faith and to not saving faith. In fact that passage in James two begins. I think it's not sure things. Verse 14. I'm not looking at remedies 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 is not a saving faith. Paul also spoke about the same thing James did in Galatians 56 deposited in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor on circumcision counts for anything at all, but a faith that works to love. So Paul says what saves a person is a faith that works through love. James said yeah it's got me a faith that has that's accompanied by works. It's not a faith that is generated by works and is not a salvation that is the reward of works. It's salvation as were the root of faith.

Whoever believes in him, but it's got to be the kind of belief the changes, something the devil believes it doesn't change in the demons believe they still lack 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 what you call me Lord, Lord, and you don't do the things that I say in hundreds, Jesus, Paul, James, you name anyone in the Bible who talks with the subject indicates that the were 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 a 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 specie is not the right kind of faith is a lot 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 of your read the enrollments for at the end of the chapter title Abram's faith and how it totally tree transformed his whole life and therefore pulses and because it did. Therefore it was counted to him for righteousness. In other words, his faith was kind of righteous because it fit the description of faith that Paul describes, and it was a life-changing faith it would change his whole direction in life changes whole self-definition.

It changes whole destiny was everything about it was changed.

Even he left his father's home and move to another country. His whole life was transformed by his faith in God and he says, and therefore it was accounted to him for righteousness. And that's not just that's not saying that you're safe because you believe, and because you do things know you say 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 salvation.

Your salvation is be like Abraham's faith, not like the devil's faith and that's what Jesus point out to the Jews in John chapter 8 is and I know you are Abraham's descendents, but if you are Abraham's true children you would do the works of Abraham. You'd be like him because you're like your father the devil, so what he saying is you can have a faith like Abraham's, in which case your 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 within you don't have a faith that saves so that would be the difference in the different kinds of faith, of which the Bible speaks Carolyn from Black diamond Washington. Welcome to the neuropathic for calling me here what you know him and the second question, how do you find out things about my went to lighthouse trails first start. They have a very full comprehensive website kind of thing on him what lighthouse terms that his ministry no credit check on him.

All I see I see says that his lighthouse is that when the kind of evaluates teachers or something I want to say about me. While it might not be good. You know 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 it, but what I do when I'm trying to learn best when I usually usually don't go to these Christian cult buster type sites because a lot of times though the label somebody occultist is because he doesn't hold their theology about something and so I want to see what he has to say. You now I weigh it and so I 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 were taught to believe. That's right. Look first and you know if what he says seems biblical enough or if even disagrees with me on something, but it seems harmless enough that I don't think badly of them, but I don't know him and his name. I think I should everything is a great great rail badly and well, 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 who defined both in essence to come up your fine you know so-and-so heretic or something but that's by somebody who thinks he's a heretic read that read their criticism. See if see if they're criticizing on the basis of a narrow viewpoint of their own, or if he really has some dangerous doctrine, but you should also hear him to 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.

Here's what he has to say. You know, and a lot of times I've known some teachers that I didn't actually agree with everything they said I didn't think there were dangerous.

I think the relatively harmless and yet I'll see other groups cult buster groups. It just sent you railing is a heretic's oversight. I'd rather hear him and and and his critics was here both sides.

I haven't looked him up but you could do that okay. Thank you for your call, should Jason from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Welcome to the neuropathic for calling. I was wondering how you and David believe that the Bible 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 you could prevent you want to them if they don't want to believe that they will believe it.

Well explaining right now if 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 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. There's lots all all you really need to do is to research Jesus the same way research any historical character and see what evidence there is for him and and and 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.

I think a lot of skeptics they say well know I can't trust with the gospel say because they're in the Bible and I think will wear what where else would they be coming they they were written as part of the Bible. None of the books of the Bible written were written as the Bible.

They are all separate books is like 66 books written separate places separate times by different authors and and a 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 the four Gospels are not they were written as part of the Bible. They were written as historical biographies by people in three cases. People who knew Jesus and 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 the horses mouth so I mean the research into Jesus can never reconsider the object of referral unless it includes consideration of what's in the Gospels. There's lots of truths of the Bible I should say proves I should say evidences because you can't prove anything. Finally, to someone who has to make a decision whether they're willing to follow the evidence enforces a great number. Skeptics who are not the least interested in following the evidence of their variance didn't debunk the Bible. If yes, and 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 suggest you go there.

The narrow if you like to donate to us rather times a day right to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or go to our website. The narrow have a good weekend sucking money

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