Phone lines are open. You've got questions. We've got answers. It's time for The Line of Fire with your host, biblical scholar and cultural commentator, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice for moral sanity and spiritual clarity. Call 866-34-TRUTH to get on The Line of Fire.
And now, here's your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome, welcome to The Line of Fire, one of my favorite days of the week. Phone lines wide open. You can call with any question you have on any subject that relates in any way to The Line of Fire. For, I don't know, the thousandth time, a reminder that our critics, those who differ with me, those who love to bash us online, you get to call too. And for those who say, Dr. Brown, how come you never take calls for those folks?
It's because they virtually never call. But we extend the invitation. You may need clarity. You may be a seeker of truth.
You may be a believer. However, I can be of help to you. 866-348-7884 is the number to call.
866-34-TRUTH. By the way, those of you who know about a several-hour dialogue that I had with Doug Givette and Holly Pivik, who've written a lot about so-called NAR, the three-plus-hour dialogue will be released shortly. I don't know the exact date.
It's going to be initially behind a firewall on the American Gospel site, but then after a period of time will be free and available to the general public. So I'll have some comments on that once it's out. And I think there's a lot of good that'll come out of the conversation and a whole lot of corrections that we'll be making to things that were said that need correction.
We'll be coming to that. But we'll wait for the video to get out. People will watch it. And I think there are going to be some surprises once it's out. And some critics are going to be like, ah, gotcha, gotcha. It's like, actually, actually, no, when we dig a little deeper. So that's going to be really, really interesting.
Can't wait to get into that. Before I take your calls, just looking as our screen gets filled here, before I take your calls, in Judaism, there is a notion about the Messiah being hidden. There are different teachings and different traditions. In some, it's more of a mystical thing that the Messiah is hidden under God's throne and he is suffering as Israel suffers and waiting to be revealed and carrying the pains of the nation.
There are others that picture him there at the temple before it was destroyed and he's sitting with the lepers and while they would just normally have all their bandages taken off at once and then others put on, he only takes us off one of the time just in case he's needed and it's time for him to be revealed. So there are different traditions about this, but there's an interesting text in Micah chapter 4. Now, I'll read the English New Jewish publication translation.
But the Targum, which is a paraphrastic expansion on the text, says this, Micah chapter 4 verse 8 in the Aramaic Targum. And you, O Messiah of Israel, who is hidden from before the sins of the congregation of Zion, to you the kingdom is about to come and the former dominion shall come back to the kingdom of the congregation of Jerusalem. So, in a very different context, there's a reference to this hidden Messiah. When I wrote my book, The Real Kosher Jesus, responding to Rabbi Shmueli's book, my friend Rabbi Shmueli responding to his book, Kosher Jesus, the subtitle was, Revealing the Mysteries of the Hidden Messiah. And in the book, I get into some of these different Jewish concepts about a suffering Messiah, hidden Messiah, will only be revealed. And my whole argument was not that the rabbinical writings were speaking about Yeshua, not that the writings of the rabbis and the ancient Jewish texts actually believed in him secretly.
That wasn't the point. But rather, that the true Messiah has been hidden from the eyes of Israel. That the true Messiah has been hidden from the nation, which is what Paul says in Romans 11 and 2 Corinthians 3 about a veil being over their eyes. And then when they turn to the Lord, a Jewish person turns to the Lord, their eyes are open, and they read those same scriptures and see the Messiah revealed. So in that sense, he's hidden within the Hebrew scriptures. He's hidden there in the Jewish Bible. And then when someone comes to faith, their eyes are open and they see, they see, and they know the truth.
So let us pray that God would continue to reveal Jesus, Yeshua, the ultimate hidden Messiah, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. All right, with that, let us go to Marlin in Hawaii. Welcome to The Line of Fire. Hey, Dr. Brown.
Hey, how's it? I've got a quick one for you. So I'm re-reading the Old Testament and, you know, I know the Chronicles kind of reverberate what's written in 1 Samuel, 1 Kings, and in 2 Samuel 24, it says the anger of the Lord was aroused against the children of Israel. And then in 1 Chronicles 21, it says Satan stood up against the children of Israel.
Standard question. It's the same event. David then ends up numbering Israel and brings down judgment on the nation. So why does 2 Samuel 24, 1 say the anger of the Lord aroused him and why does 1 Chronicles 21, 1 say that it was Satan that aroused him? So it's a very important question because it indicates to us that Satan, as a malevolent being, was not known as an entity in Israel in a widespread way before the exile, before the Babylonian exile. So the book of Job, even though the events of Job are ancient and it's written in kind of an ancient Hebrew, the actual writing of the book, we can make a very good case, is not until around the time of the exile, a little bit before or during or even right after, because the book of Job is taking into account many other portions of Scripture and even subtly weaving them into the narrative without explicitly quoting them. But Job 1 and 2 mention Hasatan, the adversary, Satan, whereas he also mentions explicitly, he's mentioned in Zechariah the third chapter, which we know for sure is a post-exilic book. So from what we understand, even though you have reference to the snake in the garden, it doesn't say Satan explicitly.
We know ultimately it was Satan in the snake, but it doesn't mention him. So if you have this all-powerful demonic being, seemingly all-powerful, that can do all these things and can smite and can kill and destroy, well, Israel and its apostasy probably would have made him one of their biggest gods. So it was only after the exile had more thoroughly purged idolatry from Israel that they were now ready to understand more about the spiritual realm. And that's why in Second Temple literature, rabbinic literature, and then the New Testament, it talks a lot about the spiritual realm, but there's much less about that in the Old Testament, except for the later books start to introduce it more.
So that's why. Now the actual thing that takes place then is because God is angry with Israel, he now allows Satan to do what he does. So God does not tell us... So any time God's angry, Satan shows up? No, not necessarily.
But in that particular case, that was the instrument. For example, we know that Nebuchadnezzar was called God's servant when he brought judgment on Israel. It doesn't mean that everyone that attacks the Jewish people is God's servant bringing judgment.
In that case, it was. So it's not an always. Just like the New Testament tells us, resist the devil and he'll flee, but not everything is the devil. So if you think in Acts 16, Paul wants to go to certain places and the Holy Spirit says no. But then he's telling the Thessalonians, I wanted to go, but Satan hindered me. So sometimes the Holy Spirit was saying no, other times it was Satan getting in the way.
So it's not an always, but a sometimes for sure. You think even the judgment of 1 Corinthians 5, this believer who's living in willful sin, sleeping with his father's wife, won't repent. Paul says, all right, turn them over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. So Satan now becomes the vehicle for carrying out judgment. So it's up to, I mean, you know, ultimately God's sovereign and the control, he chooses whenever his anger arose to allow Satan to attack them?
You could say, right, if that is the vehicle, there could be other times where God just brings a stinging rebuke to us. There could be other times where the angel of the Lord is sent. You know, for example, in Numbers 22, it's the angel of the Lord that's sent to get in Balaam's way. And the Hebrew is literally to oppose him. It's that root satan, to oppose and get in his way. But that was the angel of the Lord. God was angry with him and sent his angel. So it could be any number of things.
He could lift his hand, he could allow the devil to incite something. So, yeah, we don't want to draw conclusions beyond what we should. Sure, sure, sure. All right. Perfect. Thanks so much, Doctor. I appreciate it. You bet. 866-348-7884.
Let's go to Cheek in Newark, New Jersey. Welcome to the Line of Fire. Hi, welcome. Hi, how are you doing? I'm doing well, thanks. I'm so, I can't believe I'm on the phone with you. Well, we are.
Here we are. Hey, tell me about your name. Well, my name is Cheek. And, you know, that is my nickname that I've had since a child. All right.
How'd you get it? Well, it's really, it's really short for my name, Chica. Ah, okay. Got it. All right. Okay. Well, great. Glad we're on the phone.
What's up? So my question is this, okay, and I've watched your videos in the past about Gentiles and, well, you know, the Sabbaths. And, you know, I would like to know why Gentiles are not required to follow the Sabbaths, but they are required to follow the other nine commandments.
And why is the Sabbath only for Jewish people? Right. So great question. And there's going to be a lot of debate.
In other words, depending on who you're talking to, you're going to get a different answer. We're all reading the same Bible. So here's what we do know. The seventh day Sabbath was given to Israel as a sign of their relationship to God. And it was a way to keep them separate from the nations and once every seven days to stop to rest and to remember the Lord. Where do we get the idea of a seven day week from? Did you ever think about that? Because we know we get months from because we've got the we've got the moon and a cycle.
And we know where we get years from in terms of the earth going around the sun once in a year. But where do we get a seven day week from? Many scholars believe God gave it to Israel because otherwise it doesn't make. You know, why are we divided into like seven day periods? Why not?
Ten day periods, things like that. Right. So that was something that God gave as a sign specifically to Israel. And it's a gift to all humanity. But it's not a requirement.
So I'll explain why it's not a requirement on the other side of the break. Got one phone line open. 866-348-7884. 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. Thanks, friends, for joining us on the line of fire. My great appreciation to our co-sponsor, our friends at TriVita with their great wellness products. Part of my daily supplements.
866-348-7884. Okay, so, Cheek, getting back to you, when you read the Torah, the five books of Moses and the laws, the Ten Commandments were an initial statement, but they were just part of the rest of the laws. There were the dietary laws, there were the ceremonial laws with the temple, laws about ritual cleansing and things like that. And obviously Christians are not trying to keep all of those laws and reconstruct how to do that. They realized that was for Israel. So the seventh day Sabbath, God said, this is a sign between me and you and it's a sign of taking you out of the nations. He said, well, why isn't that required for everyone? Well, God was also very pragmatic in that as the gospel went to all the rest of the world, you had, for example, slaves in a Roman society, a Greek society, where they're under the orders of their slave masters and they don't have a seventh day Sabbath. In other words, this was given for the whole nation, right?
And the whole nation is there for keeping it. So if you had a slave, your slave couldn't work on the Sabbath either. But now you've got, maybe a slave gets saved in another culture, they can't say this is my Sabbath.
So there is a pragmatism, there's a practicality of people working this out on their own. Ultimately, church leaders representing Catholic thinking said, well, Sunday is now the official Sabbath. And this has taken the place of Saturday.
And then that became a culture. So finding a day of rest, finding a time of rest is important for the cycle of life. But it couldn't be given mandatory on a particular day because it wouldn't work in all different cultures and settings. It was for the nation of Israel, and they could keep it together.
But once you get outside of that, you don't have the power to keep it. You have jobs where you're working in non-Christian jobs, so there is no option for a seventh day Sabbath. So very quickly, different traditions emerged as to what Gentile Christians did, and some of those became fixed. There are those that continue to observe a seventh day Sabbath and feel it's important.
There are those that believe it was switched to Sunday. So the church switched it, but God never switched it officially. But it could not be mandated for all, whereas the requirement not to murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to worship idols, that was mandated for all. And that had to do with fundamental moral requirements.
So this was practical, and it was a sign for Israel, but it was not required for the Gentile nations. And part of it, again, was just pragmatism, just God being practical. And then ultimately, as the Gospel spread more and more, then a day would be put aside for rest. It was like, oh, this is an important principle, we should live this out.
But they were able to live it out as they need it in their culture. It didn't have to be the first day of the week or the last day of the week, because it could fit differently in different cultures. Does that make sense to you? Yes, it does make sense. And I try to follow, because I need that one day for relaxation.
So I actually do be savage. But I was just wondering, because I heard different things from different people. But thank you for clearing it up. I'm just really nervous talking to you. I can't believe I'm on the phone with you right now, but thank you so much. Oh yeah, it's just the two of us having a conversation, listened to by four billion people.
No, just kidding. But I just want to say again, what I said I feel sure about and confident about, but I don't divide over it. Others would say, Brown, you're completely wrong, it's still the seventh day, or no, God made it the first day. So what's key is you study scripture, that you come to your own conclusions before the Lord.
But I've done my best to answer honestly, scripturally and historically. Hey, thank you for calling, great chatting with you. God bless.
Thank you, bye. All right, let us go over to Robert in Texas. Welcome to the line of fire.
Hi, Dr. Brown. I may have rewarded the question wrong to the call screener. Does the U.S. have blood on our hands for forcing Israel to give up land, like in the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace accords, the Oslo accords? And now it's just wall to wall, two-state solution. And we're the impetus behind it. It's a good question. There are those who say that America has blood on its hands because it's supplying Israel with weapons and Israel is killing innocent people. This was doing its best to avoid killing innocent people as it executes its war with Hamas. But let's look at Gaza specifically.
So Ariel Sharon, very, very strong leader in Israel, Prime Minister Sharon, but still there was enough American pressure on him that he pulled Jewish people out of Gaza in 2005. So there are about roughly 8000 Jewish people living there. But they had lived there for for many years, some of them for longer periods of time, you know, for decades and decades. But others that lived there for years, they developed communities. They had vineyards, they had their synagogues, their schools. And it was enhancing for the people there.
But life was back and forth. In other words, it's not a closed border. You go in and out of Gaza, you buy vegetables there. People from Gaza could be working in Israel, could be going back and forth. Under pressure from America, we pulled out, Israel pulled out, but the people didn't want to leave. So they were physically uprooted, literally, physically uprooted, literally pulled out of their homes against their will and now brought into just makeshift tents, cities where they were going to live in Israel until they got resettled.
It was a very, very traumatic thing. But OK, now Israel's out. Gaza is completely self-governing. The people of Gaza are completely self-governing. Israel's not there. There's no, quote, occupation in Gaza at all. And then what do the people of Gaza do?
They elect Hamas as their leaders and we know what's unfolded since then. All the blood that's been shed. So is America culpable on some level? I'm sure we're culpable for the shedding of blood in many ways, but unintentionally.
You know what I'm saying? I don't think the American leaders had the foresight to see that this would happen. The same way taking out Saddam Hussein, it seemed like a good thing to do.
The butcher of Baghdad he was known as. But taking him out tremendously destabilized the region and there's been terrible suffering. It's resulted in hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Christians having to flee or be killed. And it's brought a lot of upheaval. It allowed for the rise of ISIS.
So was it better to have Saddam Hussein in power rather than take him out the way we did? And now it brings us bloodbath. So I don't think we intentionally did things as a government saying, oh, if we do this, it's going to lead to bloodshed here, here and here. But certainly some of the decisions we've made or pressure we put on Israel has led to bloodshed. It's a difficult thing, though. In other words, OK, well, yeah, go ahead.
Go ahead. Well, OK, for example, the Egypt Peace Accords with in seventy nine with President Carter. I mean, here, you know, God gave the land to the Jews and it's not the river to the sea. It's the river to the river. And there's dispute as to whether or not it's the Jordan River or the Euphrates in some cases. But anyway, it was to the Nile. And we forced them to give up the Sinai, which is a huge chunk of land. You know, Gaza is not much land. Right. For instance, the Sinai is a massive amount. Yes.
So here's here's the challenge, though. Just the one thing you raise a very fair point, sir. But Israel does not deserve anything right now. Israel's in the land by grace, not by righteousness, by the grace of God. And because God has purposes for for Israel and the Jewish people. And there's no guarantee that that Israel will have all of the land until there's national repentance, until there's recognition of the Messiah. So any any land that Israel has now is is by grace and by the sovereign will of God. So, you know, we we could say it belongs to them. And I agree it's it's the inheritance that God has promised to the people. But to say that we're going to see the full extension of Israel over that entire region before Jesus comes out. I don't know that we could say that that's that's something for another discussion. But again, those are promises that were the ideal promise that even through Israel's history, except the days of David Solomon were. And even then it was not quite fully realized.
Those things have not yet. And we'll say thank you, sir, for the call and for the discussion. Much appreciated.
We'll be right back. Eight six six three four eight seven eight eight four. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the line of fire by calling eight six six three four. Truth. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.
Welcome back to the line of fire here. If you're watching on YouTube and you're enjoying the broadcast, you're not one of our subscribers, then click subscribe right now. And if you want to share the broadcast with others, wonderful. Click subscribe and you'll see a bell.
Click the bell. That way you'll be notified when videos are released. We've got an exciting video, a debate from decades ago with a rabbi that we have on a real Messiah site, but has been on our YouTube channel. We're going to be releasing that next week and then regular videos we put out this way. You'll be the first to know if I do a special YouTube chat, you'll be notified as it is happening.
If you're watching on Facebook, make sure you click like and then share to get this out to more people. Eight six six three four eight seven eight eight four. Let's go to Brentwood, California.
Christina, welcome to the line of fire. Hi there. Thanks so much for taking my question today. Sure. Your ministry is such a blessing to my husband and I say just really appreciate one to say thank you. My question is about regarding like acts.
Twenty twenty eight. I had somebody recently say to make the claim that it's God's blood, that it that's heretical because of the hypostatic union. I don't quite understand how all of that works, but I did look into it. It's still to me seems like that would be appropriate since Jesus is fully God. So if you could explain to me your your take on that, that would be a blessing.
Thank you. First thing is I don't think the disciples hearing those words from Paul in X. Twenty twenty eight says that you're shepherds of God's flock, which in Greek is literally which he purchased with the blood of his own. So many translations put son as what's understood there, the blood of his own son. It's not the normal grammar for his own blood.
It's the blood of his own. So that's what makes people wonder, OK, is it the blood of his own son or is it does say he purchased with his own blood, meaning the blood of his son? In any case, if you sat down and talked to those disciples about the hypostatic union, I think they would have looked at you like, what are you talking about? In other words, some of the nuances, the way things are expressed now were articulated over a period of centuries as believers meditated on the incarnation and meditated on the reality of the word becoming flesh. And and how was Jesus fully God and fully man at the same time?
I think it was much simpler for them. In other words, they knew it to be true without trying to figure everything out. And again, it's not it's not an excuse for ignorance. It's simply saying that we make questions when they wouldn't have been questions for someone hearing it in a simple way. In other words, his own blood, the blood of Jesus. It's his own blood because it's the son of God and God is in the son and the son is in the father and it's his own blood.
Like, what's the big deal? So we understand. In other words, we intuitively understand that when Jesus said, eat my flesh, drink my blood, that he didn't mean his physical that they were there. They were there right then. Stop and and cut them open and start eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
Everyone understood that. But it was symbolic and spiritual in the same way. When we talk about God's own blood, we understand it doesn't mean his physical, literal blood, but the blood that was in the physical body of Jesus. So I don't there's nothing heretical to my God's own blood. If we understand that to mean the blood of God's son who shed his blood as a human being. But it's not like you now make a distinction between God, the spirit and Jesus, the human. It's it's one one person, fully God, fully man. So I honestly, when someone says heretical to me, that's kind of nitpicking. You know, it's it's OK. You know, it's like the Charles Wesley hymn and can it be.
Are you familiar with that? What was the hymn called? And can it be and I should gain an interest in my savior's blood died he for me. So it's, you know, amazing love.
How can it be that now my God should die for me? I've heard it. Yes. Right. Right. Well, God didn't die. Right. God is eternal. But everyone understood what's being said in the sun.
The sun literally died. But right. So it's the same thing.
We can grammarians can debate the meaning of that. Now, one little trick. If you've never done this, I often point this out. You don't need any Bible software. I use a cord and software and logo software and others, but you don't need any Bible software to do this. You go to Bible gateway dot com. Right. Bible gateway dot com type of the verse you're looking at.
This case, it comes up in the the NIV. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers be shepherds of the Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood. Right. So that's just very natural way to read it. Or they give you the option or with the blood of his own son.
Now you click on the bottom. Acts 20, 28 in all English translations. So this is all the translations that they cover here. And you'll see how many of them say with his own blood, how many say the cost of his own son's blood. And it really it's it's divided between the translators.
And there's there's debate. You know, the ESV, which he obtained with his own blood. The let's just see here. HCSB with his own blood. ISV with his own blood. So the reading with the blood of his own son is a minority reading. The vast majority simply read purchased with his own blood. So Paul saying it, nobody had a problem with it.
Nobody would struggle with it. And they would fully understand what it meant, that it's his own blood because the son is God and the son was also man. And that's the blood he should shed. It's one being, not two different ones. So, yeah, I think sometimes we make theological mountains out of molehills, you know? Yeah, I just didn't understand the heresy part of that. Then Paul is seems like Paul's literally saying that. And we understand that that's Jesus, not God, the father, obviously.
Yeah. Well, you know, again, that's what I'm saying to think Paul said it. Most translations understand, you know, when they put into English what's going on there and to claim its heresy. To me, you have to nitpick. You have to get into the theological straitjacket. It's just not not biblical.
And that's what disturbs me. You know, I was I was dealing with one critic and he was getting into this intense discussion. It is brilliant theologically, but this intense discussion about this difference. And I said, I don't think the apostles would have understood what you're talking about to be candid. And yet you're, you know, writing off whole movements or believers because they don't do this specific thing.
I said, I don't even think the apostles would have know what you're talking about. So anyway, thanks for calling and so glad to be a blessing to you and your husband. Appreciate it.
Thank you so much. All right. Eight, six, six, three, four. Oh, looking at the screen. We got some open phone lines. Sweet. This laid on a Friday.
Eight, six, six, three, four, eight, seven, eight, eight, four. And tell you what, maybe we'll get to some YouTube questions. I haven't done that in a little while. So if you're watching on YouTube and you want to post a question, just put at the line of fire at the beginning. So we'll spot it. It'll stand out from the chat and go ahead and post. And our guys will grab some of your questions and throw them in my chat box here. And I'll answer some of your YouTube questions as well.
Let us go over to Georgia. Solotiel, welcome to the line of fire. This Dr. Brown. Yes, this is me. You're speaking to Dr. Brown.
Who's this? Oh, my. You just said Solotiel. All right. I didn't know if I had the name correct. I was close.
Nice to chat with you. I have your book. I'm breaking the stronghold of food. I don't I don't know where it's at at the moment.
I might be in the truck. That's all right. That's all right.
So what's on your mind? Well, how do I know? I'm going to a church. It's a they might be I think they say they're Pentecost. Those are the people who go by the Bible, right? Well, yeah. I mean, we all claim to go by the Bible, but the Pentecostals would say that speaking in tongues and prophecy and healing, that's in the Bible. So we believe in it today. Yeah. Well.
They should I go to that church? Well, do you find OK, so let me ask you something. Do you find today today talk about Jesus as the only savior? Well, I'm not sure they they have said that Jesus is good, but Jesus claimed not to be good. And when the rich man told him, called him good and he is the rich.
And let me ask you a question. Jesus, when Jesus described himself as what kind of shepherd? In John Chapter 10, he said, I am the good shepherd shepherd.
Yes. So, of course, he was good when he was telling this guy, the rich young ruler. You don't know who you're talking to. Only God is good. Who do you think you're talking to? So he would say, you know, the teacher, you come from God, you're a good teacher.
Do you even know what you're talking about? If Jesus wasn't good, he couldn't die for our sins. But here, get to know the church. Get to know the folks there. See if they really do preach the Bible and follow the Bible.
And if if they reach out to the lost and if you could be some good friends, just try to see what they believe and read the Bible. See if it lines up for you. OK? Hmm. Thanks. What are green flags and red flags for the church?
I have no idea about green flags and red flags in the church. Sorry, not part of my culture or background. But thanks for calling and blessings to you. Hey, about breaking the stronghold of food. Next month, by God's grace, makes 10 years of healthy eating. And what's so amazing is I am ninety nine point nine percent sure that I would not be sitting here today, if not for the radical dietary change.
Ninety nine point nine percent, based on my health, based on what I know about my arteries and different things like that, that I would not be here. If I was here, I would be a fraction of who I am today in terms of energy and ability and focus and stamina and schedule. It God graciously intervened in my life, transform my life, transform my wife Nancy's life, too. She she she got in a healthy eating style before me and fell back and then got back. And together we've just marveled at God's grace and what he's done. And if you need some inspiration, you need some encouragement, if you need a boost to get you started, if you need a biblical perspective on food, we'll just tell you the truth.
We'll just tell you the truth. I encourage you to get a hold of it. Breaking the stronghold of food. You get the audio, listen to it, read the e-book or get the physical book. Eight, six, six, three, four, three. We'll be right back. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the line of fire by calling eight, six, six, three, four truth.
Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. I blew this last one. All right. I, I literally thought Salteil was asking about flags that he saw in a church, green flags and red flags instead of as my faithful team pointed out. He was obviously talking about warning signs. So sorry about that. Got that got that wrong. My my apologies. So as you're just listening, I'm not going to bring you back on the air, but as as you're listening now. Yeah.
My my apologies. So red flags. If the Bible is not central in preaching and teaching. If there is not a strong exaltation of Jesus as the only savior and Lord. If people are not called and encouraged to live godly lives. If there is no outreach to the lost, those would be serious red flags. If there is a cult of personality and all the talk is about the pastor, the leader, et cetera. And there's over exaltation of people that those would be red flags to me if there's a constant pressure to give in an unhealthy way.
Those would be red flags. Green flags would be people really sincerely love the Lord. There seems to be a spiritual health. You find a family that loves God. You can get edified and helped by the teaching.
And it's just mainstream on on the basics and and that people are coming to the Lord and being changed. Those would be great green flags to me. So for the critics and mockers here, go ahead. Put together the compilation of me getting the green flags and red flags wrong. All right.
Let us go to Gabriel in New London, Connecticut. Welcome to the line of fire. How's it going, Dr. Brown? It's a pleasure to be here.
Thanks. Well, so my question is about the suffer. If you ever heard of it or if there's any validity to it. Now, it's possibly no way from it safer. But now it's nothing.
It's trying to recover some. Now it's got weird notions about Hebrew misunderstandings of things, claims to have special insights. I wouldn't know.
We need to have it. It's not going to add anything to you. Enough translations. Yeah. Wouldn't touch it.
See, no reason to even think about it. All right. Awesome.
Thank you, Dr. Brown. God bless. You bet. All right. That was easy. Thank you. Let us go over to Jeff in Dundee, Michigan.
Welcome to the line of fire. Hi, Dr. Brown. Thank you for taking my call today.
Sure thing. So I have a question and I don't know if you have commented on this before, but so I was watching the RNC, you know, when it was taking place. And I guess I missed it on the first night at the end of the RNC that there was a certain lady there who offered a prayer in Sikh. And I guess she said it, you know, in that language. And then I think she translated it into English. And she mentioned the God of the Sikh God and called that God the one true God.
And I kind of was taken aback when I saw the video of it. You know, you know, the RNC is supposed to be conservative and somewhat Christian, you know, maintaining Christian values to a certain extent. And I was wondering if you thought, do you think God will judge something like that when government, to an extent, embraces and puts that forward to the country?
Yeah, so I didn't see it either. The Sikhs who are a group within India are monotheistic. They don't believe in the Hindu pantheon. And they do have some very, very unique and interesting beliefs. But obviously, when they speak of the one true God, they're not speaking of the God that we worship. And they would not acknowledge Jesus as the only savior and Lord.
So that would be prayer to another God, in our view, for sure. But the RNC is a political party. In many ways, it has more Christian values than the Democrat Party. And it is more pro-life and more pro-family, more pro-Israel. And generally speaking, in its platform, we'd mention God a lot more than the Democrat Party.
But they're both political parties. And that's the thing. So when Trump got the nomination back in 2016, he had Peter Thiel speak at the RNC.
So one of the co-founders of PayPal, an openly gay man, quote, married to his partner. And he was one of the speakers. He had Kid Rock, right? Kid Rock is not Christian. If it had been a normal performance, I'm sure it would have been filled with profanity. So praying to another God, I mean, what else?
You know what I'm saying? Let's not pretend that this is God's party. I vote Republican versus Democrat because of key issues, you know, abortion being one of them. And even though Trump is clearly not strong pro-life, say the way Reagan was, he was instrumental in getting justices appointed to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Now things are back to the states. I wish he was much stronger pro-life, but it is what it is. That's the reality. So I vote Republican because of these other things, but I'm not mistaken or deluded into thinking this is God's party. So when people say, yeah, there's some really good Christian speakers, well, I'm glad they have room for that.
That's great. But let's not delude ourselves. Let's not make it into the Christian party.
So to me, it's just, in general, unsafe people, the world doing what the world does. And you have a certain number of Christians among them. I'm sure you have some Christians among the Democrats and trying to bring about change in certain ways there, or advocate for the policies they believe are best for the poor, the hurting, et cetera. But yeah, to me, the judgment is we're just given over to our own ways. It would be one thing if we had a gathering of believers and Christian leaders come from all over America for a day of fasting and prayer, and we ask a Muslim leader to come in and pronounce the Basmalah, Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rachim, to pray the benediction to Allah.
And then we ask a Hindu priest to come and give an invocation to Krishna. That would be something I would think would bring judgment. For the world to do what the world does, let's recognize that's what we're dealing with. Let's not have any illusions about it.
Right, right. I remember that one prophecy about Trump was going to be radically saved and on the front of Jesus. And it seems like embracing something like that doesn't indicate that that prophecy is necessarily going to come true.
Yeah, well the fact is it hasn't yet, from everything we can see. I saw someone talking the other day, well the prophecy said that both is going to grace his ear and blow out his eardrum. Maybe the blow out of the eardrum is the prophet's own interpretation. I'm not even going to get hung up on that.
It's pretty striking the way it happens. And fall to the ground, but I have this radical encounter and the guy says, well he did, he talked about now he felt God saved him. There was a fellow on the internet saying he felt God saved him. And come on, if the prophecy is going to prove true, then he is going to have a radical born again experience and be a different man than we've ever seen. Look, whether Donald Trump knows the Lord at all is God's business. But if he had a radical life changing encounter with Jesus and was radically born again, you better believe the whole world will see it and know it.
You better believe his behavior, his attitude will be markedly different. So it may come to pass, but it certainly hasn't yet. And then of course, according to the prophecy, that would happen and then he'd be re-elected.
So we haven't seen those things and then there'd be this terrible economic downturn, etc. So if none of the rest happens, to me it was just coincidental that the guy had that one part right. But certainly to say, well this is ready. No, no, if he had the radical encounter, we'd all know it.
We would all know it. So no question. Hey, thank you for the call, sir. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. God bless you. You bet.
Alright, 866-34-TRUTH. Hey friends, if you think of it, this weekend I'll be ministering at a major youth gathering in Cornelius, North Carolina, Saturday night, the Ignite Conference, and then preaching locally at the Host Church, new song Sunday morning. And then Monday, scheduled to leave Monday morning for Mexico City. And speaking Monday night and then twice on Tuesday at a large youth conference there.
So if you think of it, pray that God would really use me to stir hearts of young lives in Mexico. Then back Wednesday we've got special broadcasting, not best of, not repeat shows, but special broadcasting coming your way Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of next week. Alright, let's go to Anthony in Houston.
Time is short, so weigh right in, please. Alright, hi Dr. Brown. I think we spoke last week. So my question was, when Moses was hit in the cleft of the rock, and the Lord said, when he passes by, he shall see his back, or no man can see his face and live. Was that the God the Father or the Lord Jesus? Because when he met with Abraham, I mean there was no problem there.
He didn't have to do that whole cleft of the rock situation. Right, he wasn't in his unveiled glory. In other words, this was in human form. So you could look at Jesus without dying. So when God appeared to Abraham, he appeared as a man.
Here, Moses had prayed, hainina et kvodekha, please show me your glory. And we know that no one can see the Father's face and live. John 1.18, no one has seen God at any time. 1 Timothy 6, he dwells in an unapproachable light which no man can see. But whether it was the Son or the Father can be debated, actually.
It can be debated. On the one hand, you could say it's always the Son who makes the Father known. And therefore, any revelation of God in visible form is always the Son. Or, because there was availing, because there was only the back parts that were seen and not His face, not the fullness of His glory, which used to be metaphorical language as well, that you could argue it was the Father. It is scripturally debatable in my view and I bet people can make passionate cases on both sides.
Right, we are out of time. Blessings and grace to you. May the Lord be with you this weekend and beyond. You
