The Hebrews in the Old Testament

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network.

This is Michael Brown. We are coming towards the end of this special period on the biblical calendar. The last of the major holy days of the fall season. In the later Jewish calendar, this becomes the new year. So Sukkot, which begins Friday night, so tomorrow night, and then lasts for a week, then there's an additional day at Elan. Sukkot Tabernacles.

We'll talk about what that symbolizes a little later in the broadcast. But welcome, welcome to Thoroughly Jewish Thursday on the Line of Fire. If you have a Jewish-related question for me, better still, if you're a Jewish person and you don't believe that Jesus, Yeshua, is our Messiah, give me a call. 866-348-7884.

866-34-TRUTH. So recently someone on YouTube made a very bizarre comment that the Moabites, the ancient Moabites, were Hebrews. So Ruth would have been a Hebrew before she joined the people of Israel. It's a bizarre comment without any biblical support and of course without any scholarly support. But because people seem to challenge it and what made me say that, how could I say that the Moabites were not Hebrews, I thought, well, it's a good question to look at what the Bible actually says. Using the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, the Old Testament as Christians would call it, what does the Bible tell us?

So here's what's really interesting. The first reference to Hebrew, not talking about a language, talking about a person, is Genesis chapter 14. Genesis chapter 14, there is the account of his cousin Lot is taken captive and there's a war between different kings, five kings against four kings, etc.

And Abram with his men goes and rescues Lot. Now it's interesting, in Genesis 14, it doesn't call Lot, who's the father of the Moabites, doesn't call Lot a Hebrew, right? But it does call Abraham, Abram at that time, a Hebrew in Genesis the 14th chapter, the 13th verse. So what does it actually mean, Abram the Hebrew?

It's unintroduced, it doesn't give us background information. So let me share with you what Professor Nachum Sarna said in his Genesis commentary. This is one of the best Jewish commentaries that's been written on the book of Genesis, came out in 1989, and reflects scholarship right up to this moment. He said, the origin and meaning of the term Ivri, which is Hebrew, is unknown, and its use here is a riddle.

Three suggestions are to be found in Genesis Rabbah 42 13. So this is Rabbinic Midrash, Rabbinic homiletical interpretation. One connects it with Avir, grandson of Noah, who is mentioned in Genesis 10 24 and 11 14. So a descendant of Avir would be an Ivri. Another derives it from Hebrew Avir, beyond, that is one from beyond the river Euphrates. And there are actually references in the Torah and the book of Joshua to the Israelite ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob coming from over the Euphrates.

The third is homiletical and alludes to Abram's religious non-conformism. All the world was on one side, Avir, and he on the other side. So there's a discussion, debate, even among the ancient Jewish sources, what did Hebrew originally mean? Now, some decades ago, as there was more discovery of ancient and recent literature, that scholars looked at a group called the Habiru or Apiru, and they were often on the outskirts of society, sort of a social class, often warring and things like that, and some people said, oh, those were the Hebrews, that they were among this group, the Habiru, Apiru, and that they were kind of the outsiders, and that's why they're referred to like this. But this is not widely accepted today that this is the origin of the term Hebrew in the Bible, and linguistically there's some difficulties with it as well. Plus, that was more of a social grouping, whereas Hebrew in the Bible is an ethnic grouping.

So, let's take a look at what Professor Gordon Wenham said in his Genesis commentary, again one of the standard commentaries used to this day. This is what he said about the Hebrew. It is quite striking that Abram should be termed the Hebrew here. This is not a term used by Israelites of themselves, but only by non-Israelites of Israelites. And he references Genesis 39, 14, and 41, 12, which we'll come to in a moment. So, who are the Hebrews in the Bible? Abram's called the Hebrew. Could it be a descendant of Avair?

Is it that simple? Well, let's take a look in Genesis chapter 11, verses 16 and 17. When Avair had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg, and after he became the father of Peleg, Avair lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters. Now, if a Hebrew, and if Re, was simply a descendant of Avair, then there'd be tons of people called Hebrews, right, because he's the father of Peleg, the earth splits in Peleg's day in Genesis 11. Peleg actually means split division, and he has other sons and daughters, so there would be thousands, hundreds, tens of thousands of people, all different groups from all different backgrounds, called Hebrews, because they're descendants of Avair. But is that what we find in the Hebrew Bible? Is that, no, no, there's only one group of people ever referred to as Hebrews in the Hebrew Bible, only one group.

It is the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, specifically the Israelites. And before you had the term Israelite, that's how you would refer to one of them. That's why Abram is called a Hebrew in Genesis 14, 13, but Lot, a verse previously, is not called a Hebrew. Lot is the father of the Moabites, right? If the Moabites were Hebrews, Lot would have been, no, no, quite the contrary, Lot wasn't a Hebrew because he wasn't Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, one of their descendants. But don't take my word for it, let's let scripture speak for itself. How's that?

Alright, it doesn't take long to do that, you can do this on your own. Search it out in any translation you want, or if you can read the original Hebrew, anybody could do it. Dig for yourself, study it for yourself. So, these are the ones referred to as Hebrews in the Old Testament. Abram in Genesis 14, 13, but as I said, not Lot in 14, 12. Joseph is referred to as a Hebrew in Genesis 39, 14, 17, and 41, 12. He also makes reference to where he came from, where his forefathers were the land of the Hebrews in 40, 15. Joseph's brothers, so the sons of Jacob, the sons of Israel, are called Hebrews in Genesis 43, 32. And Jonah, in Jonah 1, 9, is referred to as a Hebrew. The Israelites enslaved in Egypt, they're called Hebrews.

Verse after verse, Exodus 1, 15, 1, 19, 2, 6, 2, 11, 2, 13, 3, 16, 5, 3, 7, 16, 9, 1, 9, 13, and 10, 3. So the Israelites are referred to as Hebrews over and over and over and over. And Yahweh is referred to as the God of the Hebrews. He wasn't the God of the Moanites or the Ammonites or the other ancient peoples, he was the God of the Israelites, the God of the Hebrews. And then the Israelites at war with the Philistines are called Hebrews. 1 Samuel 4, 6, 4, 9, 13, 3, 13, 7, 13, 19, 14, 11, 14, 21, and 29, 3. And then, this is where it gets really interesting, an Israelite slave, an Israelite slave was referred to as a Hebrew.

Exodus 21, 2, Deuteronomy 15, 12, Jeremiah 34, 9, and Jeremiah 34, 14. Okay, let's look at the verses themselves now where it references a Hebrew or an Israelite slave. So my simple point is the only ones called Hebrews in the Bible without exception.

It's either Abraham or one of his direct descendants through Isaac and Jacob, so Joseph and the other sons of Jacob, or the Israelites in Egypt, the Israelites fighting the Philistines. Jonah, those are the only ones called Hebrew, was an ancient Israelite, period. Were the Moanites Hebrews? No, of course not.

They were no more Hebrews than they were Americans, of course not. I'm just saying the Bible is clear. It's not to be disputed. You can get mad at me. You may have an ideology that differs.

You may have to stand for someone that is putting a bogus info on the web. I can't help that. I'm just going to stay with truth. The truth will set you free. The truth will set you free. The people who are unteachable and uncorrectable dig their heels in, and as the ship sinks, they still argue their point. The people who love God love truth.

Oh, okay, I stand corrected, and they move forward. So, let's look at the verses. Exodus 21, verse 2. If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he shall go free without paying anything. Now remember, according to Deuteronomy 23, a Moabite or an Abenite could even be part of the congregation of Israel. Here, a Hebrew servant, that's a fellow Israelite.

You say, are you sure? Deuteronomy 15, 12. If any of your people, Hebrew men or women, fellow Israelites, sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. A foreign nation, someone could be enslaved beyond that. But fellow Israelite, only six years.

Then how about this? Jeremiah 34. Obviously, they could willingly stay longer, but this was the rule. Jeremiah 34. Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female.

No one was to hold a fellow Hebrew in bondage. The Hebrew is your kinsman, it's a fellow Judean. Every seventh year, each of you must free any fellow Hebrews who have sold themselves to you. Ah, so a Hebrew is a fellow Israelite, and Yahweh is the God of the Hebrews. Let's listen to what Professor Jeffrey Teague said in his Deuteronomy commentary, one of the best commentaries on Deuteronomy used to this day. Fellow Hebrew, Deuteronomy 15, he's commenting. That is, Hebrew kinsman, literally brother. The law limits the amount of time one Israelite may control another. Only foreigners may be owned in perpetuity and passed on to heirs, Leviticus 25. So this is for the outsiders, for the other nations. But an Israelite?

No. The phrase Hebrew kinsman reminds one of special brotherly obligations toward fellow Israelites. Hebrew, Avri, is the oldest designation for Israelites who could not be called Israelites before the time of Israel, Jacob himself. So, before you had the man named Israel, and his descendants would be Israelites, how did you refer to them? Hebrew! Here in Deuteronomy, Hebrew clearly means simply Israelite. Fellow Hebrew means literally Hebrew kinsman. And in Jeremiah 34, 9, it is paraphrased as Judean kinsman. Case closed! Only the Israelites were Hebrews. End of subject.

There is no ambiguity in Scripture whatsoever. You go with the word or not, that's your choice, but the word is clear. We will be right back on the other side of the break. Here comes the music. 866-348-7884. This is Michael Ellison, founder of Tributa Wellness. I want you to hear an amazing testimony from my friend, James Robison, and most all of you will know of him. He and his wife, Betty, host the Life Today television program. Now, here is James. Let me tell you about a miracle I experienced. My friend, Michael Ellison, he and his wife are our 40-year-plus best friends.

Well, let me just say this to you. I had so much pain with what was called tennis elbow that I could hardly reach over and pick up the phone without pain, without it hurting me. I couldn't pick up something to drink, a glass of tea or anything.

It was very difficult to do anything without wearing a tight strap. And then Michael shared the Nopal cactus juice with me, Nopalaya. I began drinking about that much in the morning in a glass and that much later in the day. And in three months, I was a different person. I have now gone more than 10 years with no pain. Not better, well, I have no joint pain. I am telling you it did something to the inflammation in my body that was undeniable. Now, that's just my testimony. But that's been more than 10 years with no pain.

Matter of fact, if I miss, for some foolish reason, a few days, I can feel it creeping back that fast. So give it a try. See if it helps relieve your pain. I hope it does like it has mine because it worked for me.

Nopalaya is supported by clinical studies for lowering inflammation and improving mobility, flexibility and range of emotion in the neck, back and joints for less reliance on pain medication and improved quality of life. Call 800-771-5584 and use promo code BROWN25 to receive 25% off your order. As a new customer, 100% of your order goes to support the line of fire.

Call 800-771-5584 or go online to TriVita. This is how we rise up. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.

Get on the line of fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Let me encourage you to make an investment in your own body. Driving with one of our producers up to the office the other day, he commented that he's been thinking a lot more about his health because he realizes he's going to stand before God one day and God's going to ask him, what do you do with your body? We're accountable for our finances.

We're accountable for our time. What about for our health to extend itself to us? So I would love to see all of you live the way Nancy and I live on this radical plant-based diet, etc. But at the very least, make an investment in your body. Join the Wellness Revolution. Call 800-771-5584. If this is of interest to you, that is the number to call, 800-771-5584 or you can go to TriVita.com and use the code BROWN25 and the benefits my friend James Robison has experienced.

I believe you'll experience great things as well. It'll be a Jewish-related question, 866-348-7884. 866-34-TRUTH. So I just came from Orlando, literally got off the plane and got straight up to the office from the airport. And while I was in Orlando, I was teaching for my dear friend Daniel Kolenda. They've got a new ministry school, Nations Bible College, and then they have their boot camp where they train evangelists to go preach in the streets, in the schools in Nigeria and other countries. So I got to speak to both of them together. I had the privilege of teaching at a number of fine schools, Christ for the Nations Institute in Dallas, a spiritual leadership school in Fort Worth, now Nations College in Orlando. And then once a year, Global Awakening Theological Seminary for Randy Clark in November, intensive week there, great joy.

The YWAM base in Kona now working with them, what a joy to pour into the next generation. But this trip had one little extra tiny little detail, but it was meaningful to me. At the hotel I stayed in, I stayed in room 1126. You say, what does that matter? Well, 1126? Romans 1126, and so all Israel shall be saved. A reality I live with every single day, a constant hope that fuels the fire of my faith, knowing it is written, knowing it will happen, knowing that there will be a massive turning of Jewish people around the world to Jesus, Yeshua, the Messiah, knowing even now every day that there are more Jewish people coming to him, believing him than at any time in recorded history.

So it's wonderful to see this, it's wonderful to see God at work, and I know that final day will come as promised. So just to have that room, and hey, I stayed at a hotel recently, I was in room 777 when I was in Jerusalem. That was better than when I stayed in room 666 in London, yeah. Anyway, it's just a room, but these little things, I don't mean it was a message for me. I don't need a message, the Word says so. Staying in room 1126 does not confirm that the Bible's true. I don't need confirmation, the Word is true, the Word stands on its own. It's just like I wake up in the morning, I look at the clock, and then, oh, this, it's like a scripture. Whenever I see numbers, there are scriptures, references, and things like that, so it just brought a smile to my face. Okay, with that, let us go over to Brian in Indiana. Welcome to the Line of Fire.

Hey, Dr. Brown, glad to be on again, appreciate it. I had a quick question, so I'm a Messianic Jew, so of course I believe that physical Israel still has right to the land of Israel, but I know there are people into replacement theology, and I've met a few, I think John Piper maybe is into that. What verses do they use to end up with the belief that physical Israel no longer has the right to the land and the church replaces Israel? And then my second piggybacking off of that, has there ever been, probably not, but has there ever been a Messianic Jew who believed in replacement theology? Yeah, the second question is, yeah, there are plenty of Jewish believers through the years that bought into a larger church theology, that the church was the new Israel, and they saw themselves as converts to Christianity and things like that, so sure, that's existed over the centuries, and especially before the restoration of the Jewish people back to the land, it was easier to believe in things like that. But the argument would basically be that Israel had a purpose, and Israel's purpose was to bring the Messiah into the world and prepare the world for that, and then for the Jewish people to bring that message to the nations, and now everything is fulfilled in Jesus, so He becomes the culmination of the promises, and just as He's the true vine, Israel was the vine in Isaiah 5, but He's the true vine in John 15, or Paul could say about the believers in Philippi in Philippians 3, we are the circumcision, so the spiritual believers, they become Israel, Galatians 6, 16 would be taken, Israel of God would be taken to mean the church, all believers, Romans 9, 6, not all, Israel is Israel, they would turn that kind of upside down, instead of saying there's an Israel within Israel, to say that Israel is now a spiritual entity, and that just as there's a spiritual fulfillment to the promises, now instead of a physical land, there's a spiritual fulfillment. So my response to that, of course, is that's like telling, think of Jewish refugees after the Holocaust, and telling them, well actually Jesus is your promised land, that would be like telling a starving person that Jesus is the bread of life. But in my book, Our Hands Are Staying with Blood, in the chapters that I deal with replacement theology, I do get into the arguments and then seek to refute them there, so Our Hands Are Staying with Blood, you'll find three relevant chapters that deal with, hey I appreciate the call, 866-348-7884, so Terry, not anonymous, but in an unknown location, welcome to the Line of Fire. Hey Michael Brown, how are you doing?

Doing very well, thank you. Yes, yes, so today is, I'm going to be, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the Quran, I think it's in reference to, and I know it's like Jewish, I think Thursday is correct, I'm not sure, but according to the Tanakh, if I'm going to compare, I think one of the things that, I hear a lot of debate going on between some Jews and a lot of Muslims, but I think the main point for me is really getting down to where it really hits home. And I think one of the things when I started reading the Quran and also started going back to the Tanakh, which we call the Old Testament, when I started reading it, I find it something very, very strange. And you know, the Quran states that the Messiah never died. In this case, Isaiah 53 cannot. Right, it doesn't refer to, yeah, I mean it's saying that Jesus was not crucified, that someone else took his place, but that he wasn't actually crucified, yeah. Yeah, yes, okay, so he wasn't crucified, correct?

Yeah, according to the Quran. Okay, okay, so he was never crucified. And in other words, what I'm saying to this, is if you get to the Tanakh, Isaiah 53 cannot possibly refer to the Jesus in the Quran, because it seems to contradict itself. So I always ask people, is where does it say that Jesus will be crucified because we need at least something that gives a hint trace of crucifixion, according to the Tanakh, and where does it state that it's not mentioned anywhere in any of the texts, because it seems to contradict. We know that Jesus died. Just to jump in, number one, crucifixion did not exist as a method of punishment in Old Testament times, for the most part, be very, very late in the Old Testament period. Number two, Isaiah 53 clearly speaks of a violent, bloody death. So that could well apply to crucifixion. And Psalm 22, which is the psalm of the righteous sufferer delivered from death, gives what would be a very prophetic picture of being publicly exposed and mocked, counting all your bones, being stretched out, and based on best Hebrew readings, I would argue that it says that they dug through my hands and my feet.

So you'd even have a vivid prediction there. And of course, Muslims don't accept the authority of the Bible, so it's a whole other issue. And we have the testimony of eyewitnesses to the crucifixion in the New Testament.

That's really the greater weight than all of it. But anyway, just jumping in for a time, because we had a break, but we'll be back with more calls on the other side of the break. Stay right here. When I said it's not too late for America, that God can still do something in our country, that there is going to be a pushback, a gospel-based moral and cultural revolution.

And do you remember when people thought that you were crazy because you felt the same way, because you believed what I was saying and already felt it in your heart? Well, friends, that pushback is here. The gospel-based moral and cultural revolution we've been talking about for 25 years is unfolding. And we are right in the thick of it.

And the line of fire broadcast is divinely positioned for such a time as this. Friends, you would be so gratified and blessed as I hear, if you could hear what I hear, testimony after testimony as leaders, young people, old people, moms, dads, students, people from all backgrounds come up to me and say, Dr. Brown, you're providing a template for us. You're providing a blueprint for us. You're showing us how to do this, how to have hearts of compassion, backbones of steel. But friends, it's a joint effort.

We do this together. And with your support, we can amplify this broadcast around the nation and amplify this voice to shake the nation. Join our support team today.

Become a torchbearer with a dollar or more per day. Here's the number to call to sign up. 800-538-5275. That's 800-538-5275. Or go to AskDrBrown.org, A-S-K-D-R Brown dot org, and become a monthly supporter. Click on donate monthly support.

I want to immediately give you two classic books, Compassionate Father or Consuming Fire, Who is the God of the Old Testament, and Revolution, which will really show you what it means to be a Jesus follower today. Plus, you get free access to our online classes and so much more. Sign up today. AskDrBrown.org. It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.

Get on the Line of Fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome, welcome back to Thoroughly Jewish Thursday.

Michael Brown, delighted to be with you. Shout out to all of our torchbearers, all of our monthly supporters, all of our intercessors and prayer warriors, those who share our podcast, our YouTube broadcasts, who tell friends to tune into the radio show. Shout out to all of you together. We are making a difference. Together lives are being changed. Together Jewish people are coming to faith. Together there is a holy moral and cultural pushback taking place in America. Together more and more believers are standing up and standing strong. Together we are seeing the Holy Spirit being poured out. God is at work.

Let me say it again. God is at work. I'm not just encouraged because I'm wired by God to be encouraged.

I'm encouraged because of who He is and what He currently is doing. Yes, 866-34-TRUTH with your Jewish-related calls. And I'll get back to Sukkot, the significance of that, in a moment.

Let's go over to Frances in the Dominican Republic. Welcome to the Line of Fire. Hello. Hi, Dr. Brown.

Hey. I have a question about Jesus fulfilling the law of the Old Testament. Can I think through my thought process, if you don't mind? If you can do it concisely, sure.

Yes. I called in a couple weeks ago, and I said that I bought your book on answering Jewish objections, volume 3. I read it, and then I wanted more, so I am currently waiting for two more books to get here. I looked up the previews on Google, and I saw one of the objections. So I looked them up, and you had displayed them on a video on the Real Messiah channel.

So I watched it. I read the objection on Matthew misquoting Hosea, I think. And on the comments, a guy said that Jesus fulfilling the law is nonsensical, because a man cannot be a priest and a woman to fulfill both of those commandments for those two different types of people.

Can Jesus fulfill the law if he's not a woman and if he's not a priest and if he's not a Levite man? So how do you respond to that? The comment is completely off base.

In other words, it's like throwing a football in the midst of a baseball game. It's completely irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with what he was saying. He wasn't saying, I have kept each requirement of the law that each individual person was required to keep, including women and Levites, etc. He wasn't saying that at all. He was saying, I am bringing the Torah and teaching of Moses to its fullest and most complete expression.

I am bringing to fullness that of which it spoke. So let's think, for example, of the sacrificial system. We don't have blood sacrifices anymore.

We don't need them. The traditional Jew is without them and has been without them, even though blood is the foundation of the biblical atonement system, coupled with repentance, even though that's foundational, God never said it's not necessary. But Jesus is not an animal, right? He's not a goat or a lamb. But he brings it to fulfillment by dying in our place and bringing to full meaning what the sacrifices point it to. In the same way, think of the biblical calendar, that you have the calendar Passover and all these things right up to Sukkot, but he brings it to its fullest meaning. He dies in conjunction with the Passover lamb to bring a greater liberation. He rises from the dead at the time of firstfruits. He sends his spirit at Pentecost feast of weeks, which according to Jewish tradition was when the law was given.

Now he brings this to a higher level and he returns in conjunction with the fall feast, returns in conjunction with trumpet blasts, bringing national cleansing to Israel, which corresponds to Day of Atonement and the ingathering of the nations, which corresponds to Sukkot. Take the moral requirements of the law. He brings them to a higher level. You heard, don't murder. I'm telling you, don't hate.

Don't be angry towards your brother without cause. You heard, don't commit adultery. I'm telling you, don't commit adultery in your heart. So that's what he means by bringing it to its full and complete meaning. And by doing so, now he calls us to live at this higher level. He calls us to live by this higher ethic.

There's no physical temple. He makes up to a spiritual temple. And he fulfills what the earthly priest could only partially do. And does it say in Psalm 110 to David slash the Messiah, you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, who himself was not a Levite, but he was a royal priest. So he brings everything to its fullest and most complete meaning and lives out the righteousness required overall.

And now shows us this new and better way. I deal with that in great depth in volume four, which I hope you ordered of answering Jesus' questions to Jesus. So once you read through that, if you have a follow up question, let me know. But I unpack that in great detail in volume four.

Okay? Thank you. You are very welcome. I appreciate it. 866-34-TRUTH. Let us go to, let's see, let us go to John in Colorado Springs. Welcome to the line of fire. Hey, Dr. Michael Brown.

I'd like to start before I go into my question. Just to say how much I appreciate you. You are such a blessing.

I've learned so much from watching your stuff, and I've only been watching for a short amount of time. So I really appreciate you, and I'm going to be praying for you in your ministry, brother. Thank you so much. Much appreciated. Thank you. Absolutely.

So I'm actually really, the Lord really put it on my heart to win more Jews to the Lord, more Jewish people to Jesus. And I'm just taking a look at some texts, and specifically the JPS translation. Which one? 1917 or the later one from the 80s, the Tanach? I believe the one that I have is the newer one. I want to get the 1917 one, I think is the one you... It's outdated.

It was not that great of an accomplishment. The newer one is a thousand times better. Oh, really? Okay. So I believe I have the newer one. Yes, sir.

And so with that, I just noticed a few odd things. And again, I'm not the most educated in some of these things, so forgive me. But isn't the JPS translated from later Masoretic texts versus stuff that we would have as Americans? We would translate from the Greek Septuagint, which I know is about 250 years before Christ was born.

My question involving that was... It's the opposite. Every English translation that you have, whether it's from the King James to the New King James, to the NIV, to the NASB, to the ESV, to the HCSB, to the NET, you name it. All of them base themselves on the Masoretic texts. The Greek, the Septuagint, is a translation from the Hebrew. It is a translation from the Hebrew, and probably 90% of it is in agreement with the Masoretic textual tradition. So everything proceeds from there, from the Hebrew Bible. So unless you're Eastern Orthodox and you use the Septuagint primarily, everybody, every translation, using the same manuscripts, and then you have the support from Dead Sea Scrolls, but you look first at the Masoretic texts that have been preserved, only starting with the Leningrad B19A, which is about a thousand years old, or the Aleppo Codex, different places, but you're dealing with 99.9% the same starting point that the NIV is dealing with as the JPS. However, the difference would be that because of the philosophy of the translators, if there was going to be a potential variation, maybe the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to point in a different direction, so the NIV might incorporate that into the main text, the ESV might. The new JPS, that would just have it as a footnote, that these other texts would read this.

But the differences are based primarily on different philosophy, different understanding of words, different theology. So for example, do you have it handy? Do you have it around, or no? I have a New King James in front of me, my JPS is not exactly the plan. Okay, so tell you what, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to pull up Genesis 15.6, right? Genesis 15.6, which we're used to reading in our English translations that Abram believed the Lord and God counted to him for righteousness, right?

So the new JPS from 85, and because he put his trust in the Lord, he reckoned it to his merit. So tzedakah would normally be translated righteousness, and you could make a good case for that, but in Jewish traditional thought, this is reckoned to his merit, so it's the exact same words being translated, but just with a different mindset or a different theological bent. But the same Hebrew is being translated, and it's just through different eyes. Okay, that makes a lot of sense, because I was looking at it, and I was like, okay, well, this does make sense, however, some of it seems like a strange wording, and kind of like an escape from some of the things we believe is trust in Jesus.

It's not an escape, it's a different perspective. In other words, just like a Jewish person reading it would say, you Christians are just reading your views into the Bible, you're interpreting the Bible through your eyes. No, it's we're each understanding it through our own cultural, theological lens, and everyone is really trying to get back to what the text originally meant, and then convey that as best as possible in language that we understand today. So it's really useful to use the new JPS to see where there might be a different perspective, a different mindset. And then if you just want to dig deeper, and a simple way to do this online without having a lot of language scholarship, is go to netbible.org, and you'll see it has over 60,000, so it's a Christian translation, but a lot of times it will have kind of Jewish perspectives, what you'll see is over 60,000 explanatory notes, and when you see a discrepancy, say, between JPS and New King James, or JPS and ESV, if you go there, you might actually get a linguistic explanation where it says, well the Hebrew says this, and some translate it this way, that way.

Some of the notes are fairly technical, but it's the easiest way without getting into all the commentaries or learning the languages in depth, it's the easiest way that anyone can get online and find some of these things out. So again, it's not a Jewish translator that's trying to get out, oh, the Christian meaning, we've got to change that, rather, they don't believe in that theology, they read it, understand it differently, so what we want to challenge is, okay, which is the best translation, which one really says it the way that it should be said, which is really conveying the truth accurately, and obviously, although there's a lot of beauty in the New JPS translation, a lot I've learned from it myself, I would say when it comes to these key issues, it's often on the wrong side of it. Hey, I appreciate the call, John, and thank you for the kind words. We'll be right back. This is Michael Ellison, founder of Tributa Wellness. I want you to hear an amazing testimony from my friend, James Robinson, and most all of you will know of him. He and his wife, Betty, host the Life Today television program. Now, here is James. Let me tell you about a miracle I experienced. My friend, Michael Ellison, he and his wife are our 40-year-plus best friends.

Well, let me just say this to you. I had so much pain with what was called tennis elbow that I could hardly reach over and pick up the phone without pain, without it hurting me. I couldn't pick up something to drink, a glass of tea or anything.

It was very difficult to do anything without wearing a tight strap. And then Michael shared the nopal cactus juice with me, nopalette. I began drinking about that much in the morning in the glass and that much later in the day. And in three months, I was a different person. I have now gone more than 10 years with no pain.

Not better. Well, I have no joint pain. I am telling you it did something to the inflammation in my body that was undeniable. That's just my testimony. But that's been more than 10 years with no pain.

Matter of fact, if I miss for some foolish reason a few days, I can feel it creeping back that fast. So give it a try. See if it helps relieve your pain.

I hope it does like it has mine because it worked for me. Nopalaya is supported by clinical studies for lowering inflammation and improving mobility, flexibility and range of emotion in the neck, back and joints for less reliance on pain medication and improved quality of life. Call 800-771-5584 and use promo code BROWN25 to receive 25% off your order as a new customer. 100% of your order goes to support the line of fire. Call 800-771-5584 or go online to TriVita.com It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.

Get on the line of fire by calling 866-344-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. If anyone is thirsty, come to me and drink. Who said that? Yes, Yeshua. Jesus. Where? John 7.

What was the context? Feast of Tabernacles. Sukkot. Which begins tomorrow night, Friday night for those listening live, listening over the weekend on our great stations at American Family Radio on a Sunday.

Happy to catch us driving in your car. Yeah, this is right in the midst of Sukkot. Jews around the world, especially religious Jews, but even Jews that are less religious will build a sukkah, a little tent-like structure and will spend a certain amount of time eating and hanging out there each day for a period of a week. There is an additional day, Shemini Atzeret, which was added on in ancient times. But John 7, the context there is there was a Jewish tradition that developed of drawing water. And it was from the well, the poo of Siloam, and there would be a procession with giant water jars being carried and it would end at the temple. And it was symbolic of the verses like in Ezekiel, the river that comes, or in Zechariah, the river that will flow through Jerusalem from the temple.

So Sukkot was a time of praying for rain, not just for Israel, but for the nations. And as things are laid out in Numbers 29 with the various rituals regarding the ancient biblical calendar. If you count the number of bulls that were sacrificed and each day started with 13 and 12, 11, and you add it up with 70 bulls, which represented the 70 nations of the world.

That was the conception, 70 nations of the world. And when you get to the book of Zechariah, the 12th chapter, the glorious appearing of the Lord, that He beat away like to shed the car, they'll look to Him, they'll look to Me whom they pierced. So do all of and mourn over Him, grief and repentance, recognizing we rejected the Messiah.

And then out of that 13, one of fountains open for cleansing. So this is now cleansing for the nation of Israel. And so this is the Lord returning, Feast of Trumpets, and then National Atonement, Yom Kippur, which we just passed for all of Israel. And then Sukkot, what happens, the nations, Zechariah the 14th chapter, the survivors of the nations that attacked Jerusalem will come, will come to Jerusalem to worship Him at the Feast of Tabernacles. This is a prophetic picture of what's going to happen, the in-gathering of the nations. And hence, Romans 11, 25, and 26, it's on the heels of and provoked by the fullness of the Gentiles that all Israel is to be saved and now commemorated by the nations pouring into Jerusalem to worship. This will all happen. It is written. It will all happen.

As everything prophesied in the past happened, what is prophesied for the future will happen as well. Let us go over to Evan in New York. Welcome to the Line of Fire.

Hey, Dr. Brown, thank you for taking my call. I actually have two questions that I've been struggling with. First is, why does Jesus abolish kosher and meanwhile the prophets seem to kind of beat it over our heads to keep the commandments? And secondly, how is His sacrifice valid since it wasn't on the altar and I know that Jewish law said that the death of a righteous one would atone for sins, but also because obviously it wasn't on the altar and it was a human sacrifice which God is against is what I'm struggling with. Yeah, well, right, so it wasn't on the altar because He's not an animal.

He's not a goat. That was for animal sacrifice. That's number one. Number two, it's not human sacrifice. It's not that people sacrificed Him to a God. He laid His life down. He said, no one takes it from me.

I lay my life down. So, it is, what does it say in Isaiah 53, 6? Not my words, but God's words. All of us like sheep went astray, each one turned to his own way, and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. And then later in the chapter, it pleased the Lord to bruise him. So, God puts on Jesus our sin, which He pays for. And it's not Jewish law that taught the death of the righteous atones. It is conceptually through Judaism, but it's the recognition that sometimes a righteous person dies, and why did they die?

Why did the godliest person in this generation die at 30? And the understanding was that the nation merited guilt. The nation should have been judged, and instead, this person died in their place, and if there will be repentance, they can be forgiven.

So, it's the exact parallel. Or think of the high priest. Did he have to die in an altar? Was it human sacrifice?

No. But when he died, the unintentional manslayer was set free from the city of refuge. Otherwise, he had to stay there the rest of his life, because bloodshed pollutes the land, and the only thing that can pay for it is the blood of the one who shed. But what if it was an accident? He shouldn't have to die.

Correct. So instead of him dying, the high priest dies. And when the high priest dies, he's released. And when the Mishnah and Talmud discuss it, they say, well, what was it that freed this man from the city of refuge? Was it that he was in exile for time, or was it the death of the high priest? No, it's the death of the high priest that did it.

So, that's a simple one. It's not human sacrifice. God deplores human sacrifice.

It is just like if there was, you know, let's say someone breaks into somebody's house, right, and they're going to kill everybody in the house, and one person runs down and says, you're going to have to get through me first, and they fight the person, and everybody else escapes, but they die in the process. They gave their life to save others. And that's what Messiah did. And it's richly attested in Jewish tradition.

The same with the Maccabees. Even Isaac, even though he didn't die, according to Jewish law, he shed his blood. I mean, a Jewish tradition. And every sacrifice that was repeated all through the centuries was done in memory of Isaac's sacrifice. And when God forgives sins, he forgives it based on Isaac's sacrifice. It's all over Jewish theology.

So, if you haven't read in volume 2 of my series, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, objection 3.15 in volume 2, I get into this in great depth and also deal with the altar issue. As for abolishing kosher, he didn't. He didn't abolish kosher. Why do you think Peter had never eaten anything unclean even years after? What he did was he explained that nothing that you eat can defile you. In that sense, pronounced all foods clean, but he never told his disciples to go out and violate the food laws. What he did was indicate that in point of fact, what you eat in your mouth doesn't defile you spiritually. Whether you eat with unwashed hands or whether you eat food that's not considered clean, it doesn't make you unclean on the inside. What makes you unclean on the inside is the sin of the heart. That's what he emphasized. So, Mark 7, 19, he thus declared all foods clean. In other words, in themselves, you're not defiled by them. On the other hand, there are Jewish traditions that in the Messianic age, even pig will be kosher. You're aware of that?

Yes. Right, so someone could just argue that with the in-breaking of the Messianic age that the dietary laws no longer apply. But he didn't specifically say, I abolish kosher laws. If he did so, he couldn't have been the Messiah because he would have been violated in the Torah. What he gave was a spiritual principle that now helps us to understand how to live in this world. And ultimately, can you show clearly that in the new and better covenant made in Jeremiah 31 that dietary laws are required? No, you can't show that.

That's a matter of debate. Right, I appreciate this greatly. Thank you. You are very welcome. Thank you for the great questions.

I appreciate that. Alright, let's just keep going here. Okay, we go over to Dallas, Texas. Alex, welcome to the line of fire. Hello? Yeah, you're on the air. Hi Dr. Brown. I've been listening to your program like every evening.

I've been really enjoying it whenever it's on. And I had a question. I was listening to a theologist and he was talking about the talking about Yoma and the idea of unwarranted hatred causing the destruction of the temple. I wanted to know, like, what is the Yoma?

Also, he does talk, like, I just want to clarify this. He was also talking about another, I forget what book it was. It was one of the high priests during the time after Jesus died when they were doing a sacrifice and the sacrifice wasn't taken.

Do you know what that was? The Tractate Yoma is part of the Mishnah and the Talmud. So the Mishnah is completed about 220 AD. The Talmud, Babylonian Talmud, in the 6th century, right around 600 AD, the final editing. But many of the traditions go back to the time of Jesus and even before. So Yoma is Aramaic, meaning the day. And it is the Tractate about the customs and regulations for the Day of Atonement. But any Talmudic Tractate, there are ultimately 63 of them in the Mishnah and some of them then expanded in the Talmud. But they are wide ranging.

They can get into all kinds of different subjects and discussions. So there is a Jewish tradition that the first temple was destroyed because of sexual immorality, idolatry and justice. It was destroyed then rebuilt. The second temple destroyed, not rebuilt, and centuries later. But you didn't have all those sins being committed the same way they were in the first temple. And the answer is, well, there was sinat chinam, baseless hatred, and it goes through a whole discussion there. How ancient that tradition is can be debated. But remember what Messiah says, they hated me without a cause.

They hated me without a cause. So I said, yeah, it's baseless hatred, but baseless hatred of the Messiah. But then later in Tractate Yoma, 39 A and B, so it's 39 on the front page and the back page, it does say that for the last 40 years before the temple was destroyed, the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement were not accepted by God and there were visible signs indicating that they were not accepted. And of course, we understand that to say, well, that would have been in conjunction with the crucifixion of the Messiah. Once he died for our sins and paid for our sins, those sacrifices were no longer needed. And for 40 years before the temple was destroyed, God was shouting to the Jewish world, there's a better way, there's a better way, there's a better way.

With the destruction of the temple, Jewish believers in Jesus didn't miss a beat because we already had our final atonement. Hey, we will be back with you tomorrow. If you don't have my app, Ask Dr. Brown Ministries, what are you waiting for? ASK Dear Brown Ministries, download it now. Back with you tomorrow.