The following is a prerecorded program. Let's dig into the Word of God today.
Let's explore the riches of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. That's 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.
Hey friends, this is Michael Brown. If you are a regular listener or viewer of the broadcast, you know that this past Friday, when we normally do, you've got questions, we've got answers, you can call in with all your questions. Instead, I had my friend and colleague, Dr. Mark Stengler, on with us, and we were letting Dr. Stengler answer your questions. So it was a special day to call in with your health and medical-related questions. We did it previously, and it was such a blast for everyone.
We said, let's do it again. But I didn't get to answer a lot of your normal Bible theology questions. So here's what we're going to do today. I think you're really going to enjoy the broadcast.
We're not going to talk about culture, politics, we're not going to talk about the state of America. We're going to talk scripture and answer your questions. Back in, oh, a couple weeks ago, barely a couple weeks ago, October 26th, I solicited questions on Facebook and Twitter and said, hey, ask me your best questions about specific verses in the Bible or about the Hebrew and about the Greek, and I'll answer as many questions as I can.
I did that one day, but there were so many I didn't get to that were really good. I'm going to dig into these questions today. So I won't be taking your calls, but sit back, enjoy the broadcast.
I bet you're going to learn something practical and helpful. All right, I'm going to start with Facebook questions, and this one was from Bruce. Why is God called the fear of Isaac? And the specific passage is Genesis 31 53, and it's really fascinating to see this reference here. So this is Jacob, and he's speaking here, and he says, may the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, their ancestral deities, judge between us. And Jacob swore by the fear of his father, Isaac.
Pachad Aviv Yitzchak. Pachad meaning fear, either fear itself or the thing feared. And the reason he referred to him as the fear of Isaac, meaning this was the God that Isaac revered. This was the God that Isaac honored.
And I was reading from the new JPS translation in there questions about the beginning of that verse we won't get into. But because Isaac must have so revered and feared God, obviously in a healthy and life-giving way, there is the servile fear that we're free from, like a slave would have of an angry drunken master. Is he going to beat me today?
Is he going to hurt me today for no good reason? We're freed from that servile fear, but we walk in the fear of the Lord. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. The fear of the Lord is a treasure, Isaiah tells us. So the Pachad Yitzchak, the fear of Isaac, the fear of my father Isaac, it is the God whom Isaac so feared and revered. And that's why he's referred to as that.
That's the best and simplest explanation. All right, let's go over to a question from Tony. 2 Peter 3, 15 and 16. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction as they do the other scriptures. Actually, this is a question from Kathy.
Kathy and Tony are using the same Facebook account. She asks, is this a good verse in 2 Timothy 3, 16 to answer someone who believes the apostle Paul's epistles shouldn't even be in our Bible? Yes, of course. Now, here's the problem. If someone doesn't believe that Paul's letters should be in the Bible, then they already have their own canon of scripture. They already are choosing what should or shouldn't be authoritative. Therefore, if you take them to 2 Peter, they might say, well, that was just Peter's opinion. In other words, if they're not accepting Paul's letters, if they're not accepting Romans as part of the New Testament, this is one of the first major books recognized, accepted as the New Testament universally by early believers, et cetera.
But let's just say that this person is rejecting that. Well, then why are they going to believe 2 Peter, right? Or why would they believe 2 Timothy? They would say, of course not 2 Timothy.
Paul wrote that. Or we don't even know who wrote it, and we shouldn't have it as part of our Bible. So that's the problem. Once people make an extreme statement like that, they have gone so far in rejecting scriptural authority that, in that case, it's difficult to help them. And you might ask them, okay, how do we determine what is and isn't scripture? If you're rejecting what the early believers considered scripture, then what is and isn't scripture? It's really problematic.
It's really problematic. However, if someone is questioning and wondering, and you take them there to 2 Peter 3 and say, look, Peter is even stating here that some people misunderstand Paul and twist his writings and twist the meaning of what he wrote. That was happening even back then. And was there a conflict between Paul and Jacob, James?
Was there a conflict there? And those questions coming up, were there different early ways? And Paul had the antinomian faith emphasis, and Jacob had the obedience to law emphasis, and there were different conflicts between them. Once those things become believed and accepted, then it's difficult to help people to see how, no, this is all one word in harmony with different emphases from different authors as inspired by God. But if someone accepts other writings like 2 Peter, absolutely, this is a go-to text. All right, let's go to John. John says, since you just posted a video about Isaiah 9-6, I'm wondering if you'd expand on it and help us understand the Septuagint's rendering, and his name is called Messenger of the Great Council.
Why so different than traditional Hebrew readings do we know how the early Christians understood this verse? So Isaiah 9-6, and his name, speaking of the son that was born, or to be born, and his name will be called, in Hebrew it's Peleoates, Peleoates, how funny, let me just confess something. When I have stuff memorized, and then I start to slow down and break it down, all right, and then think through this and that, often when English, Hebrew, anything, you lose your trade of thought in the middle of quoting something that I've quoted probably hundreds, thousands of times, where the various titles use Peleoates, Elgibor, Aviad, Sarshalov. When I pause for a second, my mind blanked out, just being, has it ever happened to you that when you have something memorized and you stop and think? Yeah, sometimes when I'm signing my name and I stop and think about signing rightly, it's like, ooh, look, you just got to do it.
Okay, confession there, but probably not the only one. So there is an old Jewish tradition that tries to take all these titles and put them on God except the last, and the one who is called, Peleoates, Elgibor, Aviad, Sarshalov, the one who has the, the one who is called those things, names the child Sarshalov, Prince of Peace. But otherwise, if you just take it as written, so it's Wonderful Counselor, or Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, or Father Forever, Prince of Peace.
So how could that have been spoken about the son? And there are ancient Jewish traditions that say, yes, these names were all spoken about the child. Other Jewish traditions that say, yes, he was called Elgibor, Mighty God, not because he was deity, but because he was mighty in power.
And he was called Aviad, Father Forever, because he was the father of the people and the father of the nation. So even those that didn't apply it to Jesus did believe that the names and titles spoke of the son that was born slash the Messiah. So that's the best way to read it. It seems, we don't know exactly why the Septuagint read it differently. We don't know exactly why the ancient Greek translators took it as being different.
There's no evidence that we have of textual variance. In other words, as far back as we can go, this is the way the text read. Perhaps it was, they did have a variant text, but we don't know it. And perhaps the other option was that they were just trying to interpret it somehow. And it was very interpretive and very free, but again, struggling with how a child could be called Elgibor, Mighty God, which obviously we, as believing it, refers to Jesus Yeshua, but have that explanation.
explanation. This verse would be understood differently. For example, if Jerome is understanding it with the knowledge of the Hebrew, then he would have a better understanding of it than the Greek-speaking Christians who read it in the Septuagint. But was it understood as messianic and were there aspects to it of this child being supernatural? Yes, among early believers, early Christians, as far as we know, that would have been a fairly consistent testimony. For some saying, well, Dr. Brown, you make this too complicated. Here's the deal.
Not everything is just easy. To me, it's easy to say, here's what the Hebrew means, and here's how it applies to Yeshua as the Messiah. But as to how other readings came about, other translations came about, that's more complicated, and that's an in-depth discussion among textual scholars. But the Hebrews we have, it is very powerful and overall very clear.
Let's see if I have time for another short question. Jand asked, who is the Restrainer in Revelation? I understood it to be the Holy Spirit because my Bible capitalizes He, but others think the Restrainer is Michael. So you're speaking about 2 Thessalonians, not Revelation, but 2 Thessalonians chapter 2.
And Paul writes there, and I'll just grab the text to read to you. And by the way, Professor Craig Keener, in the book that he and I wrote, Not Afraid of the Antichrist, Why We Don't Believe in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture, he said there are 30 or more different interpretations of this. Paul writes, And you know what is restraining him, meaning the Antichrist, the lawless one, now that he may be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way, and then the lawless will be revealed to him. The Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. Is that saying that the Church, which is indwelled by the Holy Spirit, will be taken out of the way?
And by the way, the Greek speaks of a he and then an it, so it seems to be two different subjects, the he and the it, taken out of the way. And then once taken out of the way, the Antichrist is revealed. No, that's impossible, because Paul already said earlier in this chapter that the Church will see that we will not be gathered to the Lord at his coming until first the great rebellion takes place, the rebellion happens, and the man of sin is revealed.
Those things must happen first. So Paul's saying we will be here to see that. Moreover, the idea that the Church will be taken out of the way and then more people will get saved during the tribulation than any time in history, so without a witnessing Church and without the Holy Spirit, that's impossible.
So that can't be it. Some think it speaks of rule, authoritative rule, and law and order. So when strong human government is taken out of the way, so that could be a king and government or world leader and government or world leaders, when law and order is taken out of the way, then the lawless one will be revealed.
That's another possible interpretation and one that makes sense. That's taken out of the way, then all hell breaks loose. There's total chaos, lawlessness, and the Antichrist is revealed. It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get into the Line of Fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Are you ready to dig deep into the Word of God with me?
This is Michael Brown. Welcome back to the broadcast. Because I didn't take your Bible theology questions last Friday when I had Dr. Mark Stengler as my special guest answering your health and medical related questions, we're digging into the Word together, so not talking politics, not talking culture, even moral issues.
We're just responding to questions about specific verses in the Bible, Hebrew and Greek questions, and I want to go to a question posted by Alexei on our Facebook page on October 26th. He said, I'm a big fan of you, your program and debates and preaching. Thank you very much for your faithfulness and dedication to the Word of God.
I have a question that for quite some time now I've been looking for clear and accurate answer to. I read a lot of translation and heard some teaching that I found on YouTube and still can't make my mind about what it really means. The question is about Isaiah 29 17. It is, is it not yet a very little while till Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?
He said, I really need to know what is the Lord saying in this verse. Is this a promise of prosperity for Lebanon or is it a promise of salvation and revival for Lebanon? Does it speak about Lebanon as a country today? I heard someone saying that it's a declaration of judgment over Lebanon as the high mountains of Lebanon would be brought down to be a flat field and the great cedars of Lebanon will turn into little fruit plants. It will mean a lot for me to know the explicit meaning because I'm a Lebanese and Lebanese Christians use this verse a lot when praying for Lebanon, but some say that this promise will only be fulfilled by the return of the Lord Jesus.
I know how busy you are and this question might not be very simple, so I really appreciate it. Thank you and God bless you for your family and ministry. First, thanks for your kind words and thanks for writing in as a Lebanese Christian. My heart really beats for Christians in the Middle East knowing how difficult it is.
Obviously, Lebanon has been a better place for Christians than other parts of the Middle East, but you've been through so much upheaval and terrorism has so affected your country and obviously Christians are often stuck in the middle, so bless you and grace to you. First, the bigger question begins with what does this mean in Isaiah's day? So there were definitely prophecies of coming judgment on Lebanon, on surrounding nations in Isaiah's day and many of the oracles, many of the words of Isaiah spoke of judgment not just on Israel and Judah, but on the surrounding nations.
But there are also promises of restoration and you think, okay, if he speaks this like 2700 years ago, what in the world does it mean about in a little while this is going to happen? Now it's possible that there was an initial positive restoration of Lebanon, that there was a time of judgment and difficulty followed by something good and positive, but it's clear that there's something more that's being spoken of. It is definitely a future promise of blessing on Lebanon. Lebanon remains Lebanon.
In other words, it's one of those places. It's one of these regions that remains where it was in biblical days and I do believe that when there are prophecies given, like the end of Isaiah 19, how God's blessing will be on Egypt and Assyria. Now we can debate exactly where Assyria would be today, Iraq and beyond that. Egypt remains Egypt, where it's always been, that those nations will worship the God of Israel and together with Israel, God will call these three nations his, his own.
Egypt he referred to us as his people. That these are prophecies that will literally come to pass. They are not just speaking about physical blessing, but there is physical blessing because there is spiritual blessing. And these verses are definitely speaking of physical blessing, which again is because of spiritual blessing.
If I were a Lebanese Christian, I would take this as something to look forward to, especially in the midst of the devastation and pain that you've suffered in recent years and are in right now in the midst of the tremendous challenges and the shortages within your nation. However, can we say that this will happen before Jesus returns or is this a promise after he returns? For sure, I would expect this after his return. For sure, I would expect this as part of the supernatural blessing that he will bring with him.
Will it happen before his return? I don't know that. So I would pray with hope, knowing that there are promises that remain for Lebanon as a nation, and pray, oh God, your blessing, your great blessing on this, this city, this country, and the cities here, and the people here. Bring them into the knowledge of the one true God through Jesus the Messiah.
Fulfill your promises. Perhaps it will build and build until the return of Jesus. Either way, I believe there are promises and you can pray into those. All right, let's go to this question from Kenneth. Please explain atonement from a Hebrew perspective.
I was told the English word atonement, at one mint, can be misleading. One of the reasons I ask this is because of Luke. He says to them, O foolish man of slow of heart, to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory? Then beginning with Moses with all the prophets, he explains them the things concerning himself in all the scriptures.
Would it not be good if disciples of Jesus could explain the necessity of his sufferings and death? 1 Corinthians 15, 3 and 4. All right, the first thing I want to point out is there's a little confusion when you talk about the English meaning of the word. When we speak of atonement, we do not primarily mean at one mint. That is how the word can be broken down.
You can point out an etymological history if you want to and break it down like that. But in fact, to atone is to expiate, is to make payment for. And that's what is fundamental in the meaning of atonement in English. So in that sense, the meaning of atonement, that Jesus atoned for our sins, that is based on the Hebrew understanding, l'chaper, meaning to atone, to expiate. It can also have the meaning of to purge and to cleanse with it. So, for example, when you would make atonement for the physical tabernacle or the physical temple or the altar or the items in it and blood would be sprinkled on them to make atonement, that would be the meaning of atonement. Sprinkled on them to make atonement. It was not because they had sinned, right? The temple altar did not sin. It's an adamant object.
You can't do that. Rather, rather, through the blood that was was spilled on it, it was cleansed. It was purged. So that is part of the meaning of atonement. But fundamentally, the understanding is that there has to be cleansing from sin. Fundamentally, it is understood that sin is deadly and destructive, and it must be removed somehow. Now we dig deeper into the atonement system in Israel, and we see that at the heart of it was blood atonement, as expressed in Leviticus 17 11.
We see that at the heart of it was the concept of life for life, or substitution. So while you may have aspects of atonement means to cleanse or to cleanse or to purify, all right, so we can talk about the temple being expiated or sin being purged with the root lechapere, that on the flip side, the application to us as human beings who've sinned to have our sins atoned for, our sins expiated, it is on the principle of life for life that the innocent takes the place of the guilty. That there is a sacrificial offering upon which our sins are visited and are removed in that way by the sacrifice of the animal.
So these are things that are fundamental. Leviticus 16 lays out these aspects, the cleansing of the temple, so the purging away of sin through the blood, the purging away of our sins being cleansed by the blood, and then the so-called scapegoat, the goat for Azazel, the goat sent out into the wilderness, carrying away our sins. So cleansing, removal, without that we perish. Without that we can't come into the presence of God. Jesus fulfills those things in his death and then vindicated by God by his resurrection.
Let's see if I can answer another question fairly quickly. Zachary asks, does the Hebrew show that Yahweh is a plural form, that is the Trinity? No, Yahweh is just the personal name for God. Do we know for sure it was pronounced that way?
Not certainly, it's the best argument that can be presented, but we don't know with absolute certainty. I do not believe it was originally pronounced Jehovah or Yehovah. But in any case, that is a personal name that in and of itself is just a name. There is nothing plural about it whatsoever. Now, God is referred to as Elohim, so the Hebrew word for God with a capital G is Elohim. That word can also mean gods with a small g and an s at the end, as in the many gods that are worshipped by the people. You say, why is a plural form used for God? This is something that is not uncommon in Hebrew and some of the Semitic languages where deity is described in the plural.
Why? Because you want to describe majesty or fullness. But there are other words in Hebrew that are plural, even though they're singular in usage. For example, the Hebrew word for compassion is rachamim. That is plural and it derives ultimately from the word womb and then from that motherly love and care. So, it is expressive and full, but it is a single word. Panim is the word for face in Hebrew. That's also plural. Could it be because of the different aspects of the face?
The eyes, the nose, the mouth, the cheeks, the hair, etc. Could that be, why? Because it is multiple items in one. So, the fact that God is referred to as Elohim is in keeping with the idea of plurality and unity, but doesn't necessarily prove it.
Okay? Now, you do have verses like Genesis 1, 26, where God says, let us make man in our image according to our likeness. And you could say, that could speak of plurality and unity as well. It doesn't prove it, but it would be in harmony with it. As for the name Yahweh itself, no, that's just a personal name, just like my name, Michael, or your name, Zachary.
Just a single name or a single individual in itself doesn't prove Trinity. We'll be right back. It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.
Thanks for joining us on the Line of Fire as we dig into the Word together. If you're watching, something will seem a little different. And what is it? Well, ah, could it be a different shirt that I'm wearing? If you're listening, what are you talking about? Well, we've actually prerecorded this broadcast over two different days.
I was coming in today, I thought, well, I could wear that same shirt from the other day. But hey, we're talking, this is, I mean, it'd be a voice, not a face. So here we go as we dig into the Word together.
I'm not taking calls, but if you were listening on Friday, we had the special show with Dr. Mark Stengler, and because of that, he was taking all of your health-related questions. I'm answering your Bible questions today like I normally would on Friday. Over on Twitter, I was asked this question. John 3.16 and the King James says, should not perish. Whoever believeth should not perish in the eternal life instead of shall not perish.
Is there a significant difference? Shall not is, is what it's saying. You will not perish. Is it a mistake in the King James, as some would say? I would assume that it's just a difference in how English was used and how, and what was meant here is simply the intent that the person who believes, then they will not perish.
So they should not, not meaning conditional, but they should not meaning that is the result of doing it. The English language has changed a lot over the centuries. It's one reason that I have not used the King James for many decades. I memorized thousands of verses out of it.
I read it cover to cover over five times. It was the one and only Bible I used for my first several years in the Lord for a good number of years. And it was really either the King James or the RSV.
So we weren't going to use the RSV. It didn't have a history or heritage to us, and there were interpretations that we didn't like. So the King James was it, basically. So if you really love the King James tradition, then use the New King James or the MEV, the Modern English Version. They are based on the same Greek New Testament text and continue in the King James tradition. But if you read the introduction to the King James by the translators, by the King James translators, they wanted to produce a Bible in the language of the people.
And ultimately what they did is also draw largely on the Geneva Bible and traditions that came before that. But the point of the matter is their whole goal was not to produce something in what would be antiquated language centuries later and people would continue to use the antiquated language, but to produce something that would be relevant in the language of the people. So the English language has changed in many, many ways over the centuries. Even if you say, I read the King James, it's not the original 1611 King James. The spelling has changed. Many other things have changed.
I'll give you one example. One of the verses we love to quote about the importance of study is in 1 Timothy 2.15, study, so in the King James, study to shoe thyself approved to God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Hopefully I'm remembering it back correctly from when I memorized it almost 50 years ago in King James. Okay, study to show yourself approved to God. Let's not worry about the rest of it, rightly dividing the word of truth, you might want to translate rightly, handling the word of truth. But the word study, did that mean take out the Bible and study, read the, no, no, that's not what it meant. The old English meaning of study, you could have study something, right, but otherwise it was used meaning to do your best, to strive. Like Paul writes to the Thessalonians and says, study to be quiet. He doesn't mean read books about being quiet, that's not his point, but make your effort to be quiet, strive to be quiet. So this is saying, excuse me, this is saying make every effort, strive to be a workman approved by God that doesn't need to be ashamed, rightly handle the word.
Oh yes, ultimately you will not be ashamed, you will be a workman worthy of approval, you will be honoring God by rightly handling the word. So that overall statement is true, but to base it on the study part, it doesn't mean study the way we mean it. Now, how would you know that unless you looked at the Greeks or other translations, all right? So if other translations say do your best, they're not changing the Greek, they're rendering the Greek in an understandable way. You say, well, the King James didn't make a mistake.
No, they didn't make a mistake, but English language changed. Look, if I talk about being gay today, what does it mean? What did it mean 50 or 100 years ago? It meant being happy and kind of light spirited, right? But the meaning has changed. If you say that's very queer, well, it could still mean odd, but queer has taken on a new meaning as well. And on and on it goes. I just give you some examples. Okay, let's see here.
Berean Barometer. Not a super specific Hebrew question, but if you're familiar with it, can you summarize Michael Heiser's work, The Unseen Realm, and whether you think the viewpoint he presents is biblically accurate or not. Let's continue to pray for Dr. Heiser.
It was announced some months ago that he was battling cancer and we're praying for God's intervention and healing in his life. We've gotten to spend some time together face to face. We did earlier this year, otherwise I've interacted on radio. He's been on my show, I've been on this podcast. So he is a fellow biblical and Semitic scholar.
We have similar backgrounds and our degrees in Near Eastern languages and literature and him with a bit more historical emphasis as well. So there is so much of what he's written that yes, of course, I agree with in terms of aspects of the unseen realm with angels and demons. In terms of ancient Semitic or cultural understandings, I shouldn't say so much Semitic, but cultural beliefs and what the different religions held to and the pantheon of gods, etc. And how that gets worked out in the biblical world. Yes, there's much an unseen realm that's like, yes, of course, if you're an ancient Near Eastern scholar that did biblical work, you would know that this was the cultural background and the spiritual background of the surrounding nations against which the biblical narrative is laid out. Now, of course, there's a massive shift from pagan idolatrous literature to the truth of scripture. And that's where Dr. Heiser can be misunderstood as if he did not believe in monotheism.
In point of fact, there's a debate in the early Israelite literature. Is it henotheistic or monotheistic? Monotheistic, in an exclusive way, is there's one deity only, period, end of subject, one god only. Henotheism would say there are other gods, but the one god is superior to them all, hence the idea of Yahweh being the most high god, right? Even Jesus in the New Testament, the demons referred to him as son of the most high god.
What does it mean, most high? Well, you're higher than all the others, as in Exodus 15, where Moses sings the song of Moses, right? Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods. Now, we come to understand, through scripture, that these other gods are not gods at all. We come to understand, through scripture, that they are just fallen angelic powers or demons that are enslaving peoples and people are worshipping them as gods. There is only one creator god. Scripture is explicit on that. There's no question about it. But were these other beings considered here, you have these other gods and these other spiritual entities that people worship.
Yes, that's true. And they did have certain dark power, and they did enslave people, but there's only one true god who's the eternal creator of all things. There are certain interpretations that Dr. Heiser and I would have differently on different verses, or whether, say, Satan, Hasatan, the adversary of Job 1 and 2, is the devil, which I say he was, and Dr. Heiser would say he wasn't. It was just this adversarial angel. So there are going to be specific points where we differ, but much of the larger narrative is just understanding ancient Near Eastern scholarship and applying it to biblical scholarship, etc.
Let's see here. Numbers 5 22, this is T, and Exodus 21 22 in the CEB translation are being used as proof text by some that abortion is somehow supported by God. I believe they're wrong, but I'd love to hear a cogent response to this, taking into account the original language.
Thank you, Dr. Brown. Okay, Numbers 5, which is the ceremony of the husband who is aroused by suspicions, he is jealous, and he thinks that his wife has committed adultery, so she puts herself under a curse. And some would try to translate it that something happens to her womb, that the baby in her womb dies, and that therefore God is pro-abortion. Problem number one with this line of thinking is it doesn't say anything about the woman being pregnant. Problem number two is that the Hebrew could very well be speaking just of her hip swelling, all right? And number three, even if I want to say she was pregnant, which the text doesn't say, I want to say this affects the baby in the womb, which the text doesn't say, even if both of those are true but neither explicit in the text, you have to read it into the text, even if that was true, in the end this is judgment. This is negative.
This is bad. Just like when David and Bathsheba commit adultery and have a child and God smites that child and the child dies, it doesn't mean that God is a baby killer and we should go around killing babies. Oh yeah, well God killed babies. No, this was judgment for a sinful act.
This was a bad thing that happened. So this has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever. As for Exodus 21-22, the best understanding there is it's actually a pro-life passage, the best way to read the Hebrew.
What I would encourage you to do is go to netbible.org, so netbible.org, netbible.org, and then look at Exodus 21-22 and then look at the translation notes that accompany it and it'll explain the different ways of understanding the Hebrew. It's literally that so you got two men fighting, right, and one hits a pregnant woman and her children come out. That's literally what it says. But there's no further harm, then it's just a fine is the only thing involved. If there's further harm, then it's life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. The best way to understand is saying if she gives birth prematurely, but there's no further harm to the child, then there's a fine imposed.
However, if there is injury, if the child dies, or if the child is maimed or disfigured, then life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. And the NET will explain why that is a good and valid translation. As for Numbers 5-22, I just want to come back there and if you just do a comparison of different versions, right, Numbers 5-22, this water that causes the curse shall go into thy bowels to make thy belly this well and thy thigh to rot. I said hip, thigh, and the woman shall say amen, amen. So that's King James. If you look at the NET, this water that causes the curse will go into your stomach and make your abdomen swell and your thigh rot. JPS, may the water that induces the spell into your body causing the belly to distend and the thigh to sag. All that to say varied translations from different traditions, from Jewish scholarship today to the King James scholarship centuries ago to the NET leading evangelical critical scholarship, all of them translate in similar ways.
In other words, to read this in that this is God performing an abortion on someone is so far fetched, but not only so, it's judgment, it's bad, it's negative. All right, we'll come back and answer the rest of your questions. Stay right here. We're not going anywhere. Keep digging into the Word. Let's keep growing and learning. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.
Thanks for joining us on the Line of Fire as we dig into the Scriptures together. Oh, oh, do you get my emails? No?
Really? How do I even listen? Okay, if you're first time or new, that's understandable. But if you've been listening for years, let me be a greater resource to you. Four or five days a week, sometimes more, I'm writing op-ed pieces dealing with what's happening in the world around us, from a biblical perspective, be it politics, be it morality, be it things with Israel, but we're coming from a biblical perspective and giving you tools, and they're all free. You say, it's hard to keep up with everything. No problem. Once a week, we send you an email listening, here are all the articles and here are the topics.
Pick what you're interested in. Boom, one email, there it is. The same thing, we do a daily radio broadcast, so if you're listening, you know about that, and we do a live stream on Facebook and YouTube for folks to watch as well. Many of you listen on live radio, many on podcasts, but then we put out lots of other videos. We have a series once a month of a new talk with a scholar. We've got a brand new one we're about to release, fascinating, about the history of African Jews, black Israelites, not the black Hebrew Israelites, but fascinating discussion we're about to release, or maybe a cultural commentary on something, or a fascinating call we'll pull out from the show, or a new teaching video. So once a week, we let you know about those.
This way you don't have to worry about missing anything, and this way it's easy to share with your friends. And then, in addition to that, once a week, normally we're letting you know about a special resource package we've put together, or a new book that's going to be coming out, or something else free that we're releasing to you. So sign up for the emails, you do it by going to Ask Dr. Brown, askdrbrown.org.
Take you just a few seconds, put in your name, email, address if you like, your physical address, put that in as well. Immediately, we'll send you a free ebook, a mini book, Seven Secrets to the Real Messiah, based on decades of scholarship put out in a simple, clear form for you to, boom, dig into. And then we'll send some emails sharing more of my testimony, background, our vision, and burdens of ministry, and how we can serve you and be a resource. So please do that if you're driving, as soon as you get a break.
You can do it at a traffic light, it's that fast, all right? But sign up for our emails, share this with a friend, so that we can be the greatest possible blessing. We're here to see you healthy. We're here to help you thrive in God. We're here to serve you so that you can fulfill God's purpose, God's calling for your life, and together we can see America, the nations, and Israel touched. That's what it's all about, and God glorified to the max.
All right, let's go over to Isaiah. Isaiah asked this question, for the listeners, can you define a bit more on love for people? I'm all for loving our brethren and praying for enemies, but we should not be tolerating nonsense. We should always defend our God at all costs. Some people need to be put in their place with love, of course.
Yeah, so here's the thing. I had tweeted out that at the foundation of your ministry, if it is not based on love for God and love for people, then something's wrong with the ministry. Love compels you to speak the truth.
Isn't that what Paul says in Ephesians 4, speaking the truth in love? If you have a loved one that is literally eating himself to death, he's morbidly obese, he's on a terribly unhealthy diet, he's getting sicker by the day. Love compels you to pray for him and then to say, hey, I want to stand by your side and help you. You must hate the way you feel and you don't know the way out.
I want to help you. That's what love does. When a Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, especially if you know the Word and you're capable of sharing with them, you spend time and you lovingly tell them that they are in error and are misleading and deceiving others. That's what love does. The commandment to love your neighbors yourself from Leviticus 19 is next to the commandment to rebuke your neighbor, right, because that's what love does.
But it's done not with, I'm gonna catch you, and harshness and in some reactionary way. It's based on love. It's love that moves us to go against the grain, to do the difficult things.
It's love for your kids that motivates you to go and talk to your school administrators and confront things that are not right and a dangerous curriculum that's being taught and on and on. So love for people isn't anything but sappy. Love for people is anything but compromise.
Love causes us to do the difficult things, to make the difficult choices, to make sacrifices. Now, actually, I was only going to be answering Bible-related verses and Bible-related questions. That is Bible-related. I was focusing more on specific verses, but I'm glad you asked, Isaiah.
Let's see. Lamassu is the angel in Daniel 11.1 saying he assisted Michael, mentioned in 10.21, or Darius. No, he's saying that he assisted Michael. Yeah, that Michael was coming from the moment Daniel started praying and seeking God and denying himself, which was three weeks earlier. Michael was sent on a mission but ended up in a battle with the Prince of Persia. Now, this would be some of Dr. Heiser's teaching of the unseen realm, that angelic beings were appointed as the guardians over different countries, but then some of these angelic beings fell and rebelled, and hence you have this spiritual warfare.
So the Prince of Persia is mentioned. He's not talking about an earthly prince. Obviously, in context, he's talking about a spiritual prince, and Michael is doing battle, and then Gabriel comes to strongly assist him. You know in 2 Chronicles 16, 9, the famous verse that the eyes of the Lord go to and throw throughout the whole earth, that he might stand in strong support of those whose hearts are wholly his.
It's the same Hebrew there, standing in strong support. So yeah, Gabriel helps Michael. You know, look at it that it was one-on-one battle, and then Gabriel got to join in, tag team with him, and together they overcame. Now, were there other beings involved?
Was it Michael and other angels? Well, it's just presented as Michael versus the Prince of Persia, but somehow he's detained. However it worked out, whether it's a little wrestling match in the spirit, whether it's armed warfare, you know, the image in Revelation 12 of Michael and his angels fighting against Satan and his angels and they're cast out, whatever is happening in the spiritual realm was real and violent. Again, whether it's hand-to-hand combat, whether we're just misapplying natural images into the spiritual realm, we can ask all those questions. But for sure there was a battle going on. If you've ever been in ministry situations where there's really intense spiritual warfare, you recognize that the spiritual realm is very real, very real, and in a sense more real than this realm in that this realm is temporary, that the spiritual created the natural and the spiritual preceded the natural.
So more real in terms of more lasting. But yes, that's what happens. He assisted Michael, not that he assisted Darius.
Let's just see if I've got any more on Twitter or if we go back over to Facebook where some were posted. Okay, David, please explain what you believe 1 John 5 19 means when it says that the whole world is under the control of Satan. How do you reconcile that with the oft-repeated popular Christian phrase, God is in control? Do you believe God is controlling everyone and everything what is evil? Okay, so 1 John 5 19 says, we're of God, little children, and the whole world lies under the power of the evil one. It's just like 2 Corinthians 4 that the God of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe.
All right, on the one hand, on a certain level, God is in control of the entire universe and nothing happens anywhere in the entire universe without his permission on some level. Now, what do I mean by that? Okay, watch this. I pick up a pen, I let the pen drop.
That just happened. That's the force of gravity. That's the reality in which we live. But ultimately, God has set up a system by his will in which the law of gravity exists and which I had the free will to do what I did. So, God has set up the system, and God is ultimately working in the midst of it.
Ephesians 1, he works all things according to the counsel of his will. Even bad things, evil things, things he hates, things he wants nothing to do with, things he disassociates himself from and says, I never planned that for you. It's not my desire for you. I'm repulsed by the very thought of it.
You know, it's that ugly. And yet he can work out his plan of redemption through that, through the darkness of evil to highlight the light of redemption, through the calamity of sin to draw people to himself as they come to the end of themselves. So, on the one hand, he is sitting on his throne, ruling and reigning, but allowing many things to happen that he does not like. Allowing Satan to rebel and become the adversary, allowing Adam and Eve to sin, allowing people to do evil things, but ultimately he's accomplishing his will through it, and at any moment, in any place, he can intervene.
At any moment, at any time, he can say, I'm moving here, I'm intervening here because he's God, and he has the right to do that. All right, now he will not force us to love him when we turn away from him, right, because he's chosen to give us free will, but he will influence us and turn our hearts and give us choices and then intervene in different ways as he sees fit to carry out his purpose. Now, when it says the whole world is under the power of the evil one, it means everyone outside of the Messiah is ultimately enslaved in one way or another.
Enslaved to sin, enslaved to wrong belief, not connected rightly with God. It doesn't mean that Satan is controlling everything that happens in the world. It doesn't mean that you are a slave to whatever Satan wants you to do every day you do if you're not saved.
It doesn't mean that. But eyes have been blinded, people have come under his power, they no longer see with clarity, and as a lifestyle, they will choose to do ultimately that which is wrong and displeasing to God because they are fallen, and therefore in harmony with and under the power of the evil one, evil being the opposite of good, evil being the expression of darkness and rebellion and sin. So yes, God is in control and people are under the power of the evil one and God has given us choices to make in the midst of all of it. And he says, choose life that you and your children may learn. God bless. Another program powered by the Truth Network.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-07-24 17:05:16 / 2023-07-24 17:24:30 / 19