The Narrow Path 08/26/2026

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we are live for an hour each weekday afternoon. I wasn't sure whether I was going to be able to be live today because I'm traveling. Many of you know that when I'm traveling, I can do my radio show remotely if I can get a good internet connection. Well, I found a place to park about a half hour ago. I'm parked behind a nearly empty parking lot behind a hotel. I set up my equipment, my Starlink and all that stuff, so I'm ready to do the show. Just five minutes ago, a security lady came up and said, "You can't be here. This is private property." I knew I didn't have time to go hook up somewhere else. I told her what I was doing and she went in to ask the people at the desk and they said I have got one hour. I said that's all I need. So I get to do the show live here from this parking lot. Next time I'll have to find something more public, I guess, or get permission in advance. I was a little concerned, actually. It was about 2:00. It's now 2:03 or 2:05. It was about 2:00 when she came up. You don't usually know what's going on over here when I'm on the show except that I'm talking to you. If you don't know what I'm doing, even though you're listening to me, because you've never heard the show before, this is a live broadcast for an hour every weekday afternoon. We take your phone calls. You can call in and ask questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, which we'll talk about on the air because it is live. You can call to disagree with the host, and you're welcome to do that too. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. We'll be able to take your calls soon. We've got some of the calls waiting already. I just want to say that one reason I am on the road and I'm not at home broadcasting from my normal place is because I'm speaking tomorrow and for the next few days up in Fresno, Clovis, Coarsegold, Oakhurst. Lots of different places. Some of those towns you've probably never heard of, but if you do know where those places are, you probably live near them. If you want to join us, we have meetings the next four nights and days. I'll be speaking, I think, nine or ten times in four days. Some of those times are not public. I'm going to be recording with another guy for thenarrowpath.com. Look under announcements and you'll find all the information about where it's going to be and such. Now we're going to go to the phones and we'll talk first of all to Tom calling from Portland, Oregon. Hi, Tom, good to hear from you.
Tom: This is Tom. Hey, Steve, I'm just wondering about Malachi 4:5, the great and terrible day of the Lord or the great and dreadful day of the Lord. It seems to be a real popular meme on a lot of Christian videos on the internet. Some of them are claiming that the angel of death is here and he's going to do the "one was taken and one was left," the Matthew 24 that other Christians used to believe was the Rapture. I think you believe that the one taken is going to be taken because they're sinners or they're weeds in judgment. They're saying that this is going to happen real soon and also that there will be the world's largest wealth transfer like when the Jews left Egypt.
Steve Gregg: When you go on the internet and try to find out what's going on, especially on the internet if you're trying to find out how current events link up with biblical prophecy and the end times and so forth, you're going to end up hearing all kinds of wild stuff. I'll tell you this: Malachi does say that God would send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Another thing was going to happen before that great and dreadful day of the Lord, and that's in Joel chapter 2, where it says, "I will show wonders in the heavens and the earth: blood, fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome or terrible day of the Lord." So the great and terrible day of the Lord is mentioned by Joel and by Malachi. What is the context? We can start with Joel because we have both passages quoted in the New Testament. Joel, of course, that's Joel chapter 2, that passage is quoted at least that part of it is by Peter on the Day of Pentecost. When the Spirit was poured out, he said, "This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel." The passage begins in verse 28 that he quoted, "I'll pour out my spirit on all flesh." But Peter continues quoting beyond the part about pouring out the Spirit and talks about judgment and the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Peter could have quoted less than that, but he quoted the whole thing because he saw the fulfillment was taking place. I believe that Joel and many of the prophets speak of a great turnaround where God takes out in judgment the corrupt Old Testament system, the second temple Judaism, and the New Covenant comes and makes the old one obsolete and the old one vanishes away. Of course, we know what happened in history is that Jesus came. He told his disciples he's making the new covenant with them there in the upper room. Then he said, "This generation shall not pass before the temple is destroyed," which he was right about that too. The old system passed in a great, horrible day, a great judgment in 70 AD. Since Peter quoted the part about the Spirit being poured out and also about the terrible day of the Lord, I suspect that he has in mind Pentecost and 70 AD, which are kind of two sides of one coin, which the prophets often spoke of. Isaiah did, Jeremiah did, others did. Now, when it comes to Malachi chapter 4, that's, of course, the statement that says God's going to send Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord. We have reference to that in the New Testament from the words of an angel and from the words of Jesus himself. In case people wonder how could we possibly know what this is talking about, well, we could ask an angel or better yet, we could just ask Jesus. The angel I'm talking about is in Luke chapter 1 when Zechariah was in the temple offering incense and an angel appeared. I think it was Gabriel as I recall and said, "Your wife Elizabeth is going to have a son. He's going to be great. He's going to go before the Lord in the spirit and the power of Elijah. He'll turn the hearts of the children to the fathers, the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the foolish to the wisdom of the just." This is a quotation or at least a strong allusion to Malachi chapter 4, verses 5 and 6, where it says Elijah would come, turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers. The angel is actually referring to that passage and told Zechariah that John the Baptist would fulfill that. He'd come in the spirit and power of Elijah and he would fulfill that prophecy. It sounds to me like the fulfillment was going to be in the first century. John did come before the terrible day of the Lord, which was 70 AD. Remember, the sample of John's preaching that we have both in Matthew and Luke is that Jesus was coming and he's like a refiner or he's like a thresher of grain. He's got his threshing instrument, his fan, in his hand and he's going to take all the grain and the chaff and he's going to separate the wheat from the chaff. The wheat he'll gather into his garner and the chaff he'll burn with fire. John is saying that this is about to happen. He said he's already got his fan in his hand. He's not hanging it up on the wall waiting for some time thousands of years from now. He's got it in his hand. He's ready to thresh. Israel is comprised of grain and chaff, wheat and chaff, because there's the faithful remnant and there's the apostate. So John is saying that Jesus is coming to make that division and the chaff is going to be burned up. In the same place, for example, Matthew 3, John says, "His axe is already at the root of the trees." He said the trees that don't bear fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire, just like the chaff.
Tom: So what about the scripture "one was taken and the other one's left"? Supposedly the Christians that were going to be saved at Pella would have already been gone. How was that fulfilled then if it was just unrighteous Jews that were left in Jerusalem and the Christians were already out of there? That doesn't seem to apply to the situation.
Steve Gregg: You're right. In my opinion, it doesn't apply to that. Matthew 24 and Luke 17 both mention that one will be taken and the other left. I believe in those contexts, it's not talking about AD 70. I think it's talking about the final judgment. Some people who are preterists will disagree with me on that. They would say everything in there is about 70 AD. I've never held that view. My view is that, for example, when you get to Matthew 24, Jesus begins Matthew 24 in verse 2 or verse 3 predicting that the temple will be destroyed, not one stone will be left standing on another. In verse 3, the disciples ask him about the timing of that. He goes into this long discourse, the Olivet Discourse. Around verse 34, I guess it is, he says, "I tell you assuredly that this generation will not pass before all these things take place." Now, he's referring to the temple being destroyed, of course, and he's quite correct in that. But the next verse in Matthew 24 says, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But of that day and hour, nobody knows." So he's just given them a timeframe for the destruction of Jerusalem, which was 70 AD; that generation did not pass. But then he says, "But that's not the end of the world. Heaven and earth will someday pass away, but no one knows when that's going to be." He didn't even give an estimate. But it's in that section that he talks about one will be taken and the other left. So the judgment of being taken like those who were taken in the flood he compares it with takes place at the coming of Christ. So the coming of Christ is a judgment upon the wicked, too. It says in 2 Thessalonians 1:8, it says Jesus will come in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who don't know God and don't obey the gospel. So there are two different judgments. One's in history, one's in the future. He predicted the fall of Jerusalem, which happened in that generation. And he also predicted another judgment, and that's the one taken and the other left. I would also point out this, Tom, just this one more thing because you were talking about the great and terrible day of the Lord and John the Baptist coming. You'll remember when John sent a message to Jesus when John was in prison and said, "Are you the one who's to come, or should we be looking for someone else?" And he told the messengers, "Go back and tell John what you're seeing." Then when the messengers go away, Jesus begins to talk about John. And he says in Matthew 11:11, "Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." And verse 14, "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come." Interestingly, he says, "If you will receive it or if you can receive it, he's Elijah." Well, Elijah who is to come is the phrase Jesus used, which means the predicted Elijah, the one who's supposed to come. And he cannot refer to anything except Malachi chapter 4 in that statement. So he's saying, if you can receive it, John is the fulfillment of Malachi 4. So Malachi said God would send Elijah. Well, this is John coming in the spirit and power of Elijah before the terrible day of the Lord. He also poured out his Spirit on Pentecost before the terrible day of the Lord. Both references to the great and terrible day of the Lord are found in passages that speak of something preceding it, which both those passages, the New Testament quotes them as being fulfilled in the time of Christ.
Tom: So what do you make then of the assertion that there's going to be this big wealth transfer like there was when the Jews left Egypt and they left with the silver and gold and jewels of the Egyptians? Is that probably a prosperity doctrine thing or wishful thinking?
Steve Gregg: It could well be. I don't hear that kind of thing very often because it's not in the Bible. I'm not on the internet that much, so I don't hear all these theories. But there certainly is not one thing in the Bible that speaks of an end-times wealth transfer. Of course, it is true when Israel came out of Egypt, there was a wealth transfer. The people of Egypt gave Israel silver and gold and stuff, and God had predicted that that would happen. Basically, the Egyptians were glad to get rid of Israel because of all the plagues that they'd brought upon them, and so they were glad to pay to get them to go. It's true also that the exodus from Egypt is a type and a shadow usually seen of the cross. Remember, Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus and they talked to him about the exodus that Jesus would accomplish in Jerusalem. So what Jesus accomplishes at the cross is what the exodus was a type of. I don't know of anything, I don't claim to know everything, I hope you realize, but I don't know of anything in the Bible that would speak of a third exodus, the cross being the second one, and a third one at the end where there's a big wealth transfer. That sounds to me like wishful thinking on the parts of prosperity teachers, but unless there's some actual scripture they can bring up. But the point is, I know there isn't one. I just can't believe that that's predicted.
Tom: The popularity of this theme, it seems to be focusing on really apocalyptic imagery and apocalyptic things and this kind of emotion rises when there's huge shifts in societies and nations like what's happening now in the world, the different wars and the immigrant crisis in Europe and America and all the changes. They're saying also that the angel of death is here now and he's going to do the "one taken," that the angel of death is going to take the tares out. There's hundreds of these videos out there by all kinds of different Christians.
Steve Gregg: Who are the people saying them? I mean, which teachers, for example?
Tom: You can take a look. If you just put "great and terrible day of the Lord," it's many, many different ministries are doing it. It's not just one group. But one of the most popular ones is called Declaring Your Destiny. They're a big one on it. But then when I looked at all the other ones, there's so many, and I have a feeling it's just apocalyptic fervor that's taking over because people are...
Steve Gregg: No doubt. No doubt it is. Let's face it, things are pretty chaotic here. Lots of things are happening that have never happened before. Well, I mean, or haven't happened for a long time anyway. But I mean, like for there to be a significant number of communists running for office and winning primaries in the United States, that's never happened before to my knowledge. That's pretty unusual and it does seem to bode ill. And of course, we've been at war with Iran for 47 years but we didn't get involved as we are now until recently. So things are changing and people's... when there's big changes, people are often thinking, "Okay, this must be it. This must be the thing." And especially because of things going on in Israel, there's a bunch of prophecy teachers saying, "Oh, this is what the Bible said would happen." What I say when people ask me, "Do you think this is something that the Bible predicted?" I'm always open to suggestions. Give me some verses. I don't know of any verses that predicted that this would happen to Israel in our time, or that Iran... these situations would happen in Iran, or that America might fall to the communists, or that there's a big wealth transfer. Every generation sees some chaotic stuff and we've seen a lot of it. But chaotic stuff always raises questions, "Is this it?" To my mind, the way to answer that is: what verses do they raise? Or are they even raising any? Are they just saying, "Well, the Bible says there'd be a great wealth transfer"? I hear people say things like that but they don't give any Bible verses. And if something is in the Bible, it must be contained in Bible verses because I can't think of any way something would be in the Bible if it's not in the verses in the Bible. So I would just say, just be discerning. I mean, when you hear something like that... the truth is, I don't listen to stuff like that partly because I do my own studies. But the thing is, if I hear something like that, someone asks me, I'm thinking, "Okay, what verses are you thinking of? Let's talk about the verses because that's what's in the Bible, is verses."
Tom: Speaking of your own studies, I just wanted to say that I finished all your books yesterday or the day before. I got done with the last one, the Revelation one. I just want to tell all the listeners that they're really missing out if they're not reading Steve's books.
Steve Gregg: Now it's time to start them over again, Tom.
Tom: That's what I'm going to do. I'm going to start them over again. You can't get it all in one reading. You have a good day, brother.
Steve Gregg: Great to hear from you. God bless you. Bye now. Okay, David in Victorville, California is next. David, welcome to The Narrow Path.
David: Hi, Steve. I have a question about Acts 13:48: "As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." Is that a syntax issue with the Greek? A transliteration versus translation? Maybe "as many as believed had been appointed to eternal life" or how...?
Steve Gregg: Not necessarily. I realize Calvinists love that verse because it sounds like the people who believed did so because God predestined them to believe. For those who don't know the verse as well as you do and I do, it says that when Paul was preaching in Pisidian Antioch and the Jews were rejecting his words, he rebuked them and said he's going to the Gentiles now. And it says in verse 48, "Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as..." here's the verse, the line, "...as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." Okay, as many as were appointed to eternal life. If you're a Calvinist, that sounds kind of like being predestined. They were appointed to eternal life and therefore they believed. Okay, well, if you've got a Calvinistic paradigm, you could I guess read it that way and many people do. But there's several different alternatives here. Let me talk about at least one or two of them. I put you on hold because there was a lot of noise on your line. I can turn you back on to put you back on to talk in a moment. First of all, the word appointed in the Greek is *tasso*, T-A-S-S-O. And appointed is a good word, good English word to translate it. It's not the only way it can be translated though. The very same word is used by Paul in speaking about some household in the church, the household of Stephanas, who were actually the oldest Christians in the church in Corinth. And he says this in 1 Corinthians 16:15. Paul says to the church, "I urge you, brethren, you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, meaning it was the first converts in that district, that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints." Well, what's that got to do with our verse in Acts 13:48? Well, a great deal because the word devoted themselves is the same Greek word *tasso*. That they are devoted or appointed. Obviously, if something has been devoted to something, it may have been devoted by someone else like Jephthah devoted to God the first thing that would come out of his tent. And so she came out, was his daughter, and she was devoted to God by him. But some people devote themselves to God. To say that someone is devoted doesn't tell us who devoted them. It means that they are inclined that way, set themselves toward serving the saints, is what he said. Now, in Pisidian Antioch, in the synagogue, there were people who were *tasso*, devoted to eternal life. Now, it doesn't have to be translated "devoted," but it can be. Just depends on what Luke is thinking. Is Luke thinking in Calvinistic terms? If so, it's rather interesting that he doesn't really say much in his books that would support that notion. Maybe this is the one place he tips his hand and tells us that he's a Calvinist. I think not because in the passage, just before he says that, just two verses earlier, Paul was rebuking the Jews in the synagogue in verse 46. Says Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first. But since you reject it and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles." Now notice, the Jews in the synagogue, Paul said they judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. He didn't say that God had judged them unworthy of eternal life and hadn't elected them for salvation. Their attitude toward eternal life was their own judgment. They had done this to themselves. They judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. Two verses later, it mentions, "but as many as were devoted to eternal life believed." In other words, there were people in the synagogue before Paul and Barnabas arrived who already had some attitude toward eternal life. Some didn't want it, not on the terms that were being preached. Others were inclined toward it, were devoted to it. They wanted eternal life. And so they believed. Now, if we see the word *tasso* that way, used that way here, as it is used obviously in 1 Corinthians 16:15, then we could see that this has nothing to do with predestination. This just has to do with orientation, inclinations. Some people were inclined toward eternal life, some were not. And the ones who were not had disinclined themselves. There's every reason to believe that those who were inclined had inclined themselves. Now, of course, a Calvinist wouldn't believe that's possible, but Calvinists don't have the Bible on their side in most cases. I mean, this verse could sound Calvinistic, but as you can see, it could sound very not Calvinistic at all. Now, there's another thing to point out. I said there's several ways you can go with this. Let's just say they don't accept the idea that it's referring to devoted. Let's say they want to insist on the word appointed, that they are appointed. And let's just say they're appointed by God. Okay, let's say God appointed these people to eternal life and they believed. Okay, so on what basis did he appoint them to eternal life? Now, Calvinists would say on no basis at all because it's unconditional election. But wait, maybe these people who turned to the gospel were people who were already turned toward God. And because of their heart toward God, he appointed them to hear and to be receptive to eternal life through the gospel. We know this was true, for example, in Acts 10, three chapters earlier, where Cornelius was certainly devoted toward God, but he didn't know the gospel. And so God sent him a messenger to preach it to him and he believed it. Did he believe it because on that moment God unilaterally made him believe it? Well, I don't know. But the man was already inclined toward it. That's why the angel came to him in the first place. So, to say that these people were appointed by God for eternal life, well, maybe he appointed them because of their hearts, because of their already belief in God. Maybe it was because of choices they'd made earlier. We don't know. Only Calvinism would insist that there was no basis at all and it was just an unconditional election. But that information's not in the passage anyway. Anyway, those are my thoughts on it. I wish I actually have more, but I don't have more time to go into it. So I appreciate your call, brother. You're listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Check it out. I'll be back in 30 seconds. Don't go away.
Steve Gregg: Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour with an open phone line for you. If you'd like to call in with questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, I'll be very happy to hear from you. We can talk about those things here on the air. If you have a disagreement with the host, that's always interesting if you want to call in with that. We always welcome that kind of thing. The number to call is 844-484-5737. All right, so if you want to call in, we have a couple lines open and we have also calls waiting. But the number again is 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Sergio from Maricopa, Arizona. Sergio, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Sergio: Hi, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. So I just have a quick question about Christ's death being applied to unbelievers. So when it comes to Romans 6:23, "the wages of sin is death," right? And Christ died for all of the world, but doesn't guarantee that everyone will be saved. Wouldn't the resurrection prior to the judgment be an effect of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection?
Steve Gregg: Well, everyone will be raised from the dead at the on the last day. I mean, it says that in John 5:28 and 29. Jesus said, "Do not marvel at this; the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and shall come forth; those who've done good to a resurrection of life, those who've done evil to a resurrection of condemnation." So all the graves will be opened. People will come out and some of them will be not saved and some will be saved. So, yeah, we could say that the resurrection of the dead, even of the unsaved dead, is a result of Christ's, I guess, his resurrection. But that wouldn't tell us much about how it affects their salvation ultimately because some, Jesus said, will come to a resurrection of condemnation, which sounds like they're not saved.
Sergio: Yeah, I was asking because 1 Corinthians 15:22, I was reading an old church father, John Chrysostom, and he was saying that all who are made alive in Christ, I guess the way he takes that verse is physically raised from the dead, rather than kind of like a universalist point of view saying all who are in Christ will be, you know, saved.
Steve Gregg: Well, Chrysostom was not a universalist, I don't think. And so, you gave me a phrase from him, but of course that phrase could be taken more than one way. Those who are alive from the dead through Christ or is that what you said?
Sergio: Sorry, I was quoting 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." And he was taking that point of view of it being just their physical resurrection, not their eternal salvation.
Steve Gregg: Oh, I see. Well, that could be true. I mean, a universalist, I guess, would say, "Well, everyone's going to be made alive in the spiritual sense." But we know that everyone's going to be made alive in a physical sense in the resurrection, and that's probably all that Chrysostom was suggesting.
Sergio: Okay, great. Thank you.
Steve Gregg: Okay, Sergio, good talking to you. Bye now. Okay, Nick from Lake Forest, California, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Nick: Yes, Steve. Glory be to God always. Sir, I got to tell you first, very humble, I don't know the Bible of course like you and many other people. But I'm talking very serious. My question please forgive is this: I'm going to go back when we talk about "two they are on the field, one going up, one stay behind." Please forgive me, listen to me, I appreciate it. The one who's go up, he's going to die, you say, correct? Yeah, that's why I think you say, please forgive me, listen to me.
Steve Gregg: Well, let me correct you for a second. I didn't talk about anyone going up. And neither does Jesus. What Jesus said is that two will be sleeping in one bed, one will be taken and the other will be left. He didn't say anyone's going to be going up. Now, there could be people going up, but that's not mentioned in the passage. All he said is there's two people in very close proximity. He also says two women grinding at the mill together, one will be taken, the other left. Two men will be laboring in the field, one will be taken and the other left. So I realize that when we have been taught about this passage, they often have indicated that the person who is being taken is going up. I think you've substituted the term "going up" for the word "taken." The point is that those who do so think this is a passage about the Rapture. They think that Jesus is going to come and then the Christians will be taken away in the Rapture, and then the people who aren't the Christians are the ones who left. And we even have the famous novels, the Left Behind series, which talks about people who were not taken in the Rapture. I mean, they're novels, they're not true stories. But the point here is the Bible really does not use the term "left behind." That's a popular term because some people think the one who is taken is taken away into the sky, and the ones who are not taken are left behind. But the word "behind" is not there. Jesus says there's going to be cases where people very near each other are in different circumstances and this coming of Christ will affect them differently. One will be taken and the other will be left. Now, the one that's left, of course, simply means they've not... whatever "taken" means, it didn't happen to them. They weren't taken. To understand what "taken" refers to, we might look at the context that Jesus used it in. In Matthew chapter 24, it says in verse 38, Matthew 24:38, "For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and took them all away. So also will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field, one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill, one will be taken and the other be left." So he says it was like in the days of Noah. The people who were behaving like they don't think they're going to die before sundown, behave like that until the Son of Man comes back. One will be taken and another will be left, that is, they won't be taken; they'll survive it. So in the passage that Jesus uses this, taken... the people who are taken are the unbelievers who were in that case taken just means killed. They weren't taken up. They didn't go up anywhere. And Jesus isn't predicting necessarily people going up anywhere. He's just "taken" means they were taken out of this life by judgment that killed them. And so that's pretty much what it means. So I understand that no doubt you, like many of us, have been told that the taken ones are going up somewhere. Now, I do believe in the Rapture, by the way. I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. Sometimes when I take somebody's favorite verses about the Rapture, I say that's not saying that. That's not what that is. They think, "Oh, so you don't believe in the Rapture." Well, of course I believe in the Rapture. Paul said that the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and thus shall we ever be with the Lord. That's 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, I think verse 16, 17. Yeah, I believe in that. Who wouldn't? It's pretty plain English. And it's even as plain in the Greek. So I do believe in the Rapture. But it's one thing to say I believe in the Rapture. It's another thing for me to say this or that verse is referring to the Rapture when there isn't any evidence that that is what it's talking about and when the context says differently. So I believe when Jesus comes back, he will rapture the living saints as well as resurrect those who have died. That apparently happens in rapid succession. Paul said the dead in Christ rise first, then those who are alive are caught up. It sounds to me like that's on the same day. And Jesus said in John 6 that he would raise up his people on the last day. I suppose that's the dead and the living are raised up on the last day. So I believe in the Rapture the same as the church always believed in the Rapture. They just always believed as I do now that it comes when Jesus returns. It doesn't come at some other time. Many people have told... are told that the Rapture refers to something that happens seven years before Jesus returns. That's called the pre-tribulation rapture. Well, if that doctrine is true, then fine, but I don't know of any verses in the Bible that say that. I used to teach it. I had to stop teaching it as soon as I realized I didn't have any verses in the Bible that said it anymore. And I don't think that's why the early church didn't believe it. That's why no one believed it until 1830, which is pretty recent, because they couldn't find it in the Bible. And neither can I anymore. I thought I did before but the verses... what you end up doing is you study the Bible, you don't just collect proof texts for something so that you can say, "Okay, here, I've got a list as long as my arm of proof texts that prove the pre-trib rapture." But when you look at them in their context, each one you say, "Wait, none of these actually say a word about a pre-trib rapture." And that's why I had to change, as many people have since. A lot of times the first person who talks to you sounds convincing. That's what Proverbs says. In Proverbs 18, it says, "He that is first in his own cause seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him." So we do need to examine sometimes the people who were the first to tell us things. Anyway, my friend, I appreciate your call very much. But yeah, it was not... it's not the case that the one who is taken in those passages is said to go up or to be raptured. In the context, the ones who are taken are like those who were killed in the flood. The judgment comes and kills them. So that's how I understand it, brother.
Nick: Now you're making me serious. It's great in my heart of Jesus Christ what you do this.
Steve Gregg: I appreciate your call, my friend. God bless. Let's see. We're going to talk next to Danny in Miami, Florida. Hi, Danny. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Danny: Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. I appreciate your radio and the questions you take no matter how odd they are and just giving your spiritual advice how the Lord leads you. My question is based on a comment that you made a few callers ago talking about those who believe in predestination or election. And you said that God doesn't necessarily have a reason why he does elect or choose people. And I was just thinking of Ephesians 1:5 where it says "according to the good pleasure of his will." Is that not a sufficient reason? Just want to hear your thoughts on that.
Steve Gregg: Oh, yeah, he predestinates us according to the good pleasure of his will. In other words, he sets the policies the way he wants them to be. God is the one who set up the gospel. We didn't. We didn't ask for it. We didn't think it up. We didn't put out a proposal to him for him to approve or disapprove. He right from his own sovereign will chose to set up the gospel. Now, what is the gospel? That Jesus died for our sins, he rose again, he established his kingdom, he's at the right hand of God, he calls all men to repent and to follow Christ. That's the gospel. And who's going to be saved? Well, the ones who believe. Now, to say that God set it up that way and determined who would believe and who would not is far from what Paul's saying. It was his plan that believers would receive them. And we fortunately were believers. We might as easily have not been believers. And people who are not believers might as easily have been believers. But what God decided was that believers will have these benefits. And Paul's writing to believers when he says "we," "us." He's not writing to non-Christians. So he's saying that Christians have received tremendous benefits because we're believers and God's the one who out of his own generosity came up with this plan and this offer. Now, he doesn't say in that passage or anywhere else that God was pleased to save certain people for no reason at all. The truth is, he gives reasons. For example, Jesus said, "Blessed are the merciful; they shall obtain mercy." Okay, well, that sounds like there's a condition there. Jesus said, "If you don't forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive you your trespasses." All right, same sounds the same to me. Once in Proverbs and twice in the New Testament, God says that he gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. Okay, so humility must be something important. Several times it says we're saved by grace through faith, meaning faith is something we do. God doesn't believe in us, we believe in him. That's we're the ones who have the faith. So I mean, there are conditions. And those who meet those conditions receive the promise that's made on the basis of those conditions. So Paul never says it's that God took nothing into consideration in us. Calvinism does say that God takes nothing into consideration in the elect. It's unconditional. He just kind of everybody's about equally bad and therefore he can't hold out for any goodness or any good choices on our part. We're dead in trespass and sins, we can't make good choices. So he's just got to make those choices for us. Well, that's the Calvinist view. Fortunately, it's not the biblical view, nor was it the Christian view before Augustine. The first 400 years, there weren't any Christians who held that view. Augustine invented them and they became very important views in the Reformation. So that's what's called Reformed theology. But I'm not Augustinian in that respect and I don't feel any Christian's obliged to be. I'd rather follow what Jesus and Paul and the Bible says. And it's good to be in good company with all the Christians before Augustine for the first 400 years, too, in thinking that way.
Danny: I appreciate you clearing that up. I just have another question. So you mentioned some of those attributes like meekness and all those different things. But aren't those fruits of the Spirit that come after salvation? Meekness, humility, things like that.
Steve Gregg: Well, humility is not mentioned as a fruit of the Spirit. Meekness is in the list. Yeah. But being merciful is a condition for receiving mercy. You know, but let's just take the humility one thing. God resists the proud and he gives grace to the humble. So don't we need grace? Okay, he says, well, he gives grace to humble people. He doesn't give it to proud people. So it seems to me that many people in the Bible were commanded... some of them were bad people who didn't obey the command, but they were commanded to humble themselves. Christians are even told to humble themselves under the mighty hand of God and he'll exalt you. But what I'm saying is the Bible doesn't have a... there's not a lot of verses that tell us that being humble is a condition for salvation, but there's a few. There's lots of them that say we have to have faith. And to have faith the way that the Bible requires requires humility as a foundation because I don't trust in somebody if I'm trusting myself. I don't trust somebody else if I'm trusting in myself. If I'm trusting in myself, then I won't be trusting in God or anyone else. I'm trusting in me. And I got to be humble enough to realize I can't trust in me. I'm not a good bet to gamble on. I'm going to have to trust in God instead of in me. I have to deny myself, take up my cross, and I'm going to have to follow Jesus and trust in him. So I'm not trying to lay out a checklist of things you have to do to get saved, but the Bible certainly does indicate that salvation is connected with people of this particular mindset and not with others. That's what I'm saying.
Danny: Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you for your feedback on that.
Steve Gregg: All right, Danny. Good talking to you. Thanks for your call. Okay, Matt in Whittier, California, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Matt: Hi, Steve. Two short questions for you. Well, I don't know about short, but I have two questions related to the same topic. First one would be: basically a friend and cousin of mine both, a friend and a cousin of mine, recently have embraced Calvinism. I myself identify as somebody in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism. I was raised in the Calvary Chapel movement, so Chuck Smith ordained pastors to go out and preach. I grew up in one of those churches. So it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb for me when they keep using Romans 9 to argue for unconditional election. And I guess my question would be: what is the quickest, most biblically sound way to unpack that chapter to show them a non-Calvinist alternative?
Steve Gregg: Yes, absolutely. And by the way, if I can't get through it all in the short format we have here, at my website, thenarrowpath.com, you've got my verse-by-verse lectures through every book of the Bible, including Romans. And in Romans 9, I do give Paul's train of thought so that people recognize he's not talking about Calvinism. But Calvinists do like to have proof texts, so they go to Romans 9 that gives the impression even of unconditional election. Election is mentioned numerous times in the Bible. And God making choices is... but it never says that he does that unconditionally. In other words, he chooses to save those who believe. That's a choice God makes. Those who believe are therefore chosen to be saved on the basis of their belief. But Calvinism says, no, you're chosen not on the basis of your belief, just on the basis of nothing. God's the one who makes you believe if he has first chosen you. Well, that's not in the Bible. But here's where they're getting it in Romans chapter 9. And this truly is the only passage in the Bible that speaks of election and gives the impression of being unconditional. It says in verse 14 of Romans 9: "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.'" Now, I agree with that. But we've already seen Jesus said, "I'll have mercy on those who are merciful." "Blessed are the merciful; they'll obtain mercy." So it's not like when God says, "I'll have mercy on whoever I want to," that's true, but it's not like he doesn't do it on some basis. He shows mercy on those who are merciful. He says, "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh..." Actually, I should have read earlier. My mistake. Should have read as early as verse 10. "Not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, 'The older shall serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.'" Now here it's talking about the choice of Jacob over Esau. Now, Jacob was the younger son of the twins. Esau was born first. And yet God said in Genesis 25:23 to the mother when they're both in the womb, "The older shall serve the younger." Paul quotes that. And then he quotes Malachi 1:2 and 3 where it says, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Now, what's he saying here? Well, here's what he was saying in the lead-up to this. It's just that Calvinists don't read apparently the verses that lead up to this because Paul's making an entirely different point than what they want to make. He's pointing out throughout this that they are not all Israel who are of Israel, verse 6. And then he points out that Abraham's children were not all equally the chosen people. He talked about how Isaac was and Ishmael was not. And then Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau, and Jacob was and Esau was not. And he quotes these two verses. What he's pointing out is that God, within the Jewish race, within the descendants of Abraham, has chosen to have some of them be used for special purposes. A few verses later he calls them vessels for honor. And others he's relegated to be vessels of dishonor. All right, good. Now, what is the honor? Well, the honor of Abraham's seed is that they were to be the ones that would bring Christ into the world. That was the promise God made to Abraham. Through your seed, which is Christ, all the nations of the earth would be blessed. That's the promise to Abraham. But he didn't use every seed of Abraham. There's a lot of people descended from Abraham that Jesus did not come through. He chose Isaac and then Jacob and then Judah and further down he chose David and so forth. Every generation after Abraham, God had to narrow down the family to decide which one's going to bring Christ in the world. But not which one's going to heaven. Paul's not talking about people who are saved and unsaved. And there's no suggestion here that Jacob was saved and Esau was not saved. We have no information in the Old Testament about the eternal salvation or lack thereof of Jacob and Esau. That's not discussed in the Old Testament, nor here. What he's saying is the nation of Jacob was chosen to carry on the promised line. The nation of Esau was not. And we see that because he quotes Genesis 25:23 where Rebecca was told about these two twins. "Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples shall be separated from between your feet. One shall be greater than the other and the older shall serve the younger." That is, of the nations of Esau and Jacob, the older, Esau, his nation would serve the younger, Jacob's. And that's true. Now, by the way, it was never true that the man Esau ever served Jacob. If this is talking about individuals, then it was a false prophecy because it says the older, Esau, will serve the younger, Jacob. But he's talking about the nations, the two nations in your womb. He's not talking about individuals. This is not God unconditionally choosing one individual to be saved and another individual not to be saved. That's what Calvinists need it to be. No, it's saying God, totally on his own reasons, picked Jacob over Esau to be the one whose nation would bring the Messiah into the world. Likewise, when he quotes Malachi, "Jacob I've loved, Esau I've hated," that's pretty much... Monday through Friday at this same time. And I think I cut out there a little bit. I hope not. Anyway, we're out of time. We are listener-supported. You can write to us at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California 92593. Or go to our website thenarrowpath.com. And at thenarrowpath.com, you can also find the lectures I referred to if you want a more in-depth treatment of Romans 9 or any other verse in the Bible. Go to thenarrowpath.com and we've got the lectures there on those things. Thanks for joining us. Have a good afternoon.