Dr. Browns Takes Your Questions and Calls

Phone lines are open. You've got questions. We've got answers. So as we always do on Friday, wide open, any question of any kind, as long as it relates to the content of the broadcast, 866-348-7884. The earlier you call, the better chance we have of getting to your call. If you would like to discuss with me the history of the conquests of Genghis Khan, sorry, that's not my field.

If you'd like to ask me about intricacies of Spanish literature from Mexico in the 1800s, I can't help you with that either. If you want my opinion on sports, I've got more opinions there, but that's not what the show is about. So anything that touches on any area that we touch on on the broadcast, phone lines are open. 866-342. All right, we start with Joey in Southbridge, Massachusetts. Welcome to the line of fire.

Hi, Dr. Brown. Thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to call because I was interacting with someone today on Twitter and Donald Trump and Biden. And I basically explained to her that I don't understand how any evangelical could vote for Biden, knowing his abortion policies. And so she basically came out and said, well, those same people that are against abortion, you know, those who support Donald Trump or against abortion support immigration and kids in cages.

So I never really thought of it. But can you just explain to me what the Bible says about immigration and how can we balance that between, you know, saying it's wrong to abort babies? But in my view, immigration is also, like, it's against the law for someone to cross the border. So how can we harmonize that? So what we have from a biblical perspective are principles, because if it's ancient Israel, ancient Israel drove out the Canaanites and killed those that were worshipping idols in their own midst.

In other words, you have to make application from Israel to today and say what principles apply. But what you have is safe borders. And those that are legitimate refugees, legal immigrants we embrace and help.

And both parties should stand for that. So we got two issues here. Number one, the lies and the caricatures about Trump and immigration. The issue is keeping out illegals, those that came into America illegally, broke laws, broke their own country's laws, broke our laws to be here.

That's the issue. The kids in cages is just the myth of the media. In other words, there are cages that were built in the Obama days. There were kids put in cages separated from what may or may not have been their parents for a period of time.

But they're not in cages and nobody likes that. That's just the way it was. That was under the Obama administration. Trump cracked down a little more.

Why? It's the whole thing called coyotes, that people are illegally bringing kids that are not their own into the United States, often for sex trade and things like that. So you don't know, oh, that's my child. We don't know it's your child. We have to verify it. So they have to be separated until it's done.

Nobody likes it. It's just necessary. But again, the cages were built under the Obama administration. Kids were there under the Obama administration. Kids were there under the Trump administration. That's been dealt with in terms of it's not the norm.

It's not the pattern. So your answer is nobody wants kids in cages. That's a myth of the media. And what we want is safe and legal immigration. We don't want convicted felons and drug users coming into America, kicked out of their own countries, sent here to hurt American citizens. What we want is those who are legitimately needy, those that are fleeing from tyrannical regimes, economic hardship, and want to start a new and better life in America.

We are wide open. We welcome hundreds of thousands of immigrants all the time. So what we want to have is safe borders, an open door to take in and help those who are fleeing persecution, tyranny, economic hardship, and looking to start a new and better life here and become part of our society, not destroy it, not overturn it.

Our arms are open wide. So that's the policy I espouse and that should be the policy of both parties. You know, and you could just say, so just, just tell me where this, please show me the Republican policy and the platform that says we stand against legal immigration. Please show me where it says that we will not incorporate into our country needy from other lands that want to start a new and better life here. Please show me where it is our goal to put separate kids from their parents and put them in cages.

So it's, it's just the myth that's being put forward a false, a false image. And the interesting thing is that to a, to a surprising degree, Hispanic Americans said, we don't want illegal immigration, we want legal immigration. And we came in through a legal process and we want to see that continue.

So very simple. It's just another smokescreen. Yeah.

And Melania Trump, far as I remember, she's a legal immigrant. All right. Thank you for the call. 866-3-4-TRUTH.

Let's go to Brian in Foley, Alabama. Hey, man, how you doing? I'm doing pretty good, Ron.

How are you? Good, good. What question number are we up to? I believe, man, I was just trying to think of that.

I think it's five. That sounds about, that sounds about right. Yeah. I spot the name when it comes up. How do you like that? Yeah, go ahead, sir.

Okay, thanks for taking my call, Dr. Brown. So I have a question about, in regards to the Trinity, and I'm a Christian, I believe in the Trinity, but so in Daniel, it says, it's almost like the Bible paints this picture as if once we get to heaven, with our eyes, we will see God, and then we will see Jesus in two different, in two different beings. Because in Daniel, it says, it refers to God as the Ancient of Days, and it says that the Son of Man presents himself before him. And then in other places, like Mark in Revelation, it says the Son of Man sits on the right hand of God.

Yes, sir. When we get to heaven, we will see two beings. So why do we try to like, you know, say that God is Jesus one? I mean, I understand they're one in the sense that I believe that God gave Jesus the authority to come down here and die for our sins. But I'm kind of confused as if to say God himself came down and died.

Right, so what we need to do is be more precise in our language. The Word was made flesh. The Son came down. The reason that you have reference to the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man in Daniel 7, or Mark 14, you'll see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, or Acts 7. I see the Son of Man, you know, standing at the right hand of the Father, you know, as Stephen is being stoned to death, is because the Son comes down and takes on human form. So he takes on a distinct physical form, and in that distinct physical form, he stands unique.

The Word was made flesh. God doesn't think God was made flesh, right, because that could give the idea that he ceased being God in heaven. And that's what we understand him as a trinity, as a triunity, as complex in his unity. The Father sits enthroned in heaven, and without our eyes being opened, is hidden from human sight, too glorious for human sight. The Son comes down and reveals him in bodily form, like in Genesis 18 or in the Incarnation.

The Spirit works invisibly among us. So this is how God can do all of this and yet be one God at the same time. So read through John 1, 1 to 118.

Read through that again and it lays it out a certain way. That's why it doesn't say God became flesh, but the Word. So it's the Son.

It's the one who makes him known. Now that being said, in the climax of all things, 1 Corinthians 15, the Son will turn everything over to the Father, that God may be all in all. And when you get to Revelation chapter 22, I just want to read this to you.

I've often referred to this when this question comes up. And I remember I was doing some guest lectures as a visiting professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Oh, when would that have been? Late 90s, talking to Professor Murray Harris, great New Testament scholar who had written the book Jesus as God. And he reminded me of what it says in Revelation 22 verse 3 about the New Jerusalem. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city and his slaves or his servant will serve him. Now look at this, verse 4. This is God and the Lamb. They will see his face and his name will be on their foreheads. So, Brian, it may well be, it may well be that eternally all we see is one God, one face, as the mission is completed. All right, now here's the only problem with you having 50 questions, is by the time we're done with it, we're going to have 50 more. So anyway, look forward to hearing from you again in a few weeks. God bless you.

866-34-TRUTH, we go to Christian in Toledo, Ohio. Welcome to the line of fire. Thank you. What's going on, Dr. Brown?

Hey, man. I have a couple questions for you. My first question is, how do we date Scripture? I know that we say like Psalm 22 is like a thousand years, no mistaking before Jesus, and we say like Isaiah is like 700 years. How do we know that? Like, I'm kind of confused on that one.

I got a second question for you, too. Yeah, so if the Scripture dates itself, right, if it says these are the words of this prophet that he spoke at this particular time, then you say, okay, that's when it was originally delivered. Now, it may have been finalized in a book form later on, right, but we know Isaiah lived at a certain time, right?

You know, so it's the vision of Isaiah, son of Amoz, who prophesied concerning Judah and Jerusalem during the reigns of, and it mentions Uzziah, it mentions Ahaz, it mentions Hezekiah. So we know when they lived, right? That's roughly 700 years before Jesus.

He prophesied over like a 50 or 60 year period. It could have been from like 740 to 680, but we know when the kings lived. In other words, we have the chronologies, we can date things back. We have other ancient or eastern chronologies, so we can compare that. If Psalm 22 is written by David, well, David lives roughly a thousand years before the time of Jesus.

Many of them are not dated, like the book of Joel, so we don't know exactly where to put that, or when was first Samuel written or second Samuel written. You know, you have to kind of speculate and try to figure different things out. But when we do have dates, it's based on just knowing the chronologies. So if I said, hey, this happened during the Reagan administration, okay, so then you know, okay, there's this eight year window in the 80s. Okay, this happened in the days of Lincoln, all right, so that's the 1860s and so on. So that's just how we know with those, but sometimes we don't know with certainty. We're not exactly sure. Okay.

Yep. All right, second. Yeah, my second one now is about, I don't know if you remember this or not, but it's about... All right, stay right here. We'll be back. And right here with your calls, 866-342.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. You received my emails. We send out an update, video watch list once a week. We put out about 600 videos this year. This way you know the latest videos.

Friday, it's the wrap for the week. All the articles, only five new articles a week. So you get them, summaries of them, and then special resources and breaking news of, yes, key things that we're involved in, you'd want to be part of. So go to my website, askdrbrown.org, askdrbrown.org. Just take a few seconds to fill out the email information. Oh, and when you do, we send you a free mini book, an ebook, Seven Secrets of the Real Messiah. So take a minute to do that. If you're driving, wait till you stop it.

Really, the time it takes to be in a red light, you can probably get it all filled out. All right, so Christian, your second question. Go ahead. Okay, yeah. So Acts 2 38, I've called in before, and we spoke about this, and it kind of set me right, whatever my head, that the Holy Spirit was speaking through Peter. So obviously, that was the truth right there, right? But now I'm just kind of confused on the fact that why was Peter shot when he seen Gentiles being dwelt with the Holy Spirit? My friend told me because Peter didn't believe that Gentiles were supposed to be in dwelt the same way they were. So I'm not kind of understanding, like, why was Peter shot if he didn't believe?

No, it's, well, here's the deal. Even though Jesus had plainly said that the message was for all people, right? Go into all the world, make disciples of the nations, and you start Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, to the ends of the earth. So they understood that, but it was still, they may have thought, okay, first all the Jews get saved, and then when they get saved, the Gentiles will automatically get saved. I mean, how are you going to reach the whole world?

I mean, how are you going to possibly do that? So if we reach our own people, and then they come to faith, maybe that'll be the catalyst, and out of that, the whole world will turn. So when God wanted Peter to go in Acts 10 to Cornelius and, you know, go to Joppa and speak to him, it was, you know, okay, this is a little different. I'm going to the house of a Gentile.

I've never done that because we see them as unclean. And now as he's speaking, they haven't done anything, they haven't repented yet, they haven't said anything yet in response. They just start speaking.

So I was like, what in the world? It would almost be like you get this message to share the gospel with Muslims, and they're sitting there listening, and suddenly they begin to raise their hand and speak in tongues, like, what, how'd that happen? And God said, yeah, they already cried out, they opened their hearts, they looked to me, they're saved through faith in Yeshua, and now they're filled with the Spirit. So part of it was just his small-mindedness of not recognizing how it was time for the Gentiles, and the other is just the way it happens, like, this quake, you don't go through a ritual process, or have to do this, or maybe have to get circumcised, or, you know, who knows what he's thinking.

It just blew him away, how it happened. But thank you for the questions, I appreciate it. All right, 86634truth, let's go to Jay in Boise, Idaho. Welcome to the line of fire. Thank you for taking my call.

You're very welcome. So I had called maybe two or three weeks back, asking some questions about why what is known as the message is not a very commonly discussed issue in apologetics, the William Branham sect of American Evangelicalism, if we recall it that. And I heard, I remember you responding that Old Testament style of prophets were not something that was necessarily around anymore, and that that was kind of a, like an apologetic that could be used against it. But I was looking through scriptures, and it does seem to me that not only does the Bible not have anything to, like, explicitly say that, but it does seem to me like that it kind of states the opposite, and I just wanted to name it a few brief scriptures, and just see maybe if I'm misunderstanding something. The first one was the, you know, the two witnesses in Revelation 11, that seems like a prophecy of future prophets. There also seems to be in John 1 21, when they're talking about, you know, there's Elijah and that prophet and the Messiah, as if they're three separate figures. They also have Amos 3 7 talks about, I can do nothing unless I reveal to my servants the prophets, which would seem to me like, you know, if you were to judge California, for example, he would have to reveal that to somebody, otherwise he'd be contradicting his work. And then also, just, it seems to me like the most common verse I hear is people say that the law and the prophets was unto John, meaning John the Baptist, but it seems to me that John the apostle is obviously a prophet. I mean, Revelation is almost as visionary as Daniel or Ezekiel.

Right. Yeah, the key thing is to understand New Testament prophecy. Number one, Amos 3 7 is not necessarily an eternal truth. It's certainly relevant Old Testament, but now the whole church is preaching repentance and telling people to turn to God. So the whole church takes on a prophetic role. In Acts 2, the Holy Spirit is poured out on all flesh, sons, daughters, maid servants, male servants can all prophesy. So prophecy should be ubiquitous now. Prophecy should be happening all over the place. Prophecy should be super common in New Testament times, but it has different function. The two witnesses in the book of Revelation is highly debatable in terms of, is that something that had relevance in the first century?

Is it symbolic of something else? Remember, the whole book is full of symbolism, unless you believe that Satan has seven heads and ten horns and things like that, as per Revelation, the 12th chapter. You know, John 1 is just talking about Messianic expectation in the first century, and there were Jews who were expecting an Elijah figure, it's separate from that, a prophet, others, you know, the Messiah, and then a priestly Messiah.

So that's just various Jewish expectation. But in New Testament, it lays out plainly the function that prophets are just part of the ministry functions of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher. That's why I say it should be ubiquitous, there should be prophets all over the place, and that it functions in a totally different way than Old Testament prophets. The Old Testament prophets were bringing national words and had to be infallible because they're telling, okay, go out and fight this battle, or God says this or that. They were speaking on behalf of God. The people did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. You didn't have prophecy being ubiquitous. Many people didn't even have scripture.

So if they got things wrong, they spoke presumptuously, they were stoned to death. Whereas the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 14, two or three prophets speak and the others judge carefully what's being said. Or 1 Thessalonians 5, don't despise prophecy, right, don't put out the Spirit's fire, don't despise prophecy, test everything, hold to the good. So the New Testament prophecy and prophets function in a totally different way. So it's a matter of prophetic words are given, and now we test them, we judge them, we discern them.

We don't speak. I fully believe in New Testament prophetic ministry. I 100% believe in it. And in certain specific ways, giving words and things like that, over the years at times, God uses me in that way. I've received words that were quite striking, the timing of them and how they happened, and you just kind of look up and say, Jesus, you're amazing, you know, risen from the dead and still speaking. But everything is judged, everything is tested, and if someone comes and gives me a word, first I test it by scripture, but then I have to bear witness with my own spirit. If it doesn't bear witness with my own spirit, I'm a child of God in right relationship with him, then I just put it off to the side.

So one of the big errors with Branham, big, big errors with Branham, was that he thought he was Elijah and was functioning as an Old Testament prophet and making authoritative statements and things like that for the whole body and the whole world, and that's contrary to the way New Testament prophecy operates. 866-34-TRUTH. All right, we can grab another call right here.

Let's go to Miguel in Brooklyn. Welcome to the line of fire. Hey, Doc, thank you for taking my call. You bet.

I got a question. Revelation 14, 14 to 20. Would you say that's a rapture? Because we can see that we're told that the Jews will be the first to suffer and then the first to escape it, and it happens in Revelation 14, 1 through 5.

So when I read the harvest of the earth, it's the same thing. Jesus appears with a white crown and he reached the earth because it's fully raptured. So I want to know your opinion. What's your opinion on that? Is that the rapture in your opinion?

What do you think? Well, okay, the first issue is I don't believe in a pre-trib rapture, so... No, no, yeah, absolutely. Right, right. Okay, so when you're speaking of rapture there, what exactly do you mean when you say that? Oh, so this is happening after the seven-year period, after the beast and the second beast appears. This is before the wrath, but after the seven seals and the... Yeah, so if you held to a pre-wrath rapture and we're trying to read it like that, I still don't see a catching away here or taking out. It seems that it's the harvest of judgment and there's no reference to a group being pulled out or spared. And the order that I see in Matthew 13 and the parable of the wheat and the chairs, now bear in mind it is a parable, but the lesson in the application is that the wicket will be weeded out, right, and then the righteous will rejoice. So the wicket are removed and then the righteous rejoice in the Lord. In any case, to me, if you're going to argue for a separation between rapture and second coming, then to argue for a pre-wrath rapture is far better than a pre-trib rapture because you're saying we're here right until the end and then taken up before the final wrath.

My understanding is there's only one event, though. In other words, Yeshua comes, the Messiah comes for the whole world to see. We're told, you know, look up, your redemption draws near. We look up and with anticipation knowing we don't know the day or the hour, but knowing the time is near, he appears in glory for the whole world to see. We are caught up to meet him, all believers, for the whole world to see. We're caught up together and then we descend with him. We meet him right in the air as he's coming and we escort him back to earth. So as I understand it, it's one event at the culmination once the wrath has been poured out. Hey, but keep digging there.

All kinds of insights we can keep leaning from Scripture. Thank you for the call. 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. Welcome, welcome to the broadcast. I love coming into the studio every day to do radio.

We've got a great team here. Just love coming in to do the broadcast. Fridays always feel like they're not fair because we don't have to do any prep for the show. We don't have to prepare clips, go through news items and, you know, coordinate with guests.

Just come in and answer your calls. It's like giving candy to a baby, right? Except I don't eat candy anymore. I'm not a baby.

But that's how it feels. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go to Nicholas in Toronto. Welcome to the line of fire. Hello, Dr. Brown. Thank you for taking my call, and God bless you from Canada.

Thank you, sir. I've been really engaged with some of Dr. Heiser's work, particularly around his Deuteronomy 32 thesis, as alluded to in his book, Unseen Realm. And I'm really interested in this, I guess, ontological framework. And, you know, I'm just kind of wondering, how do we reconcile this idea of territorial, lesser gods, as alluded to in Psalms 82 as, you know, the Lord presides over this divine council? How do we reconcile when Jesus directly retorts the Pharisees and John 10 and says, Well, aren't you gods to whom the word of God came?

I feel like there's a bit of a disconnect in this world. I was wondering if you can provide some clarification. Yeah, so of course, you know, the questions come up constantly about Psalm 82. And one day I would love to coordinate a debate between James White and Michael Heiser, both of them friends, but James I've been, you know, close with for years now, as they bring different perspectives on Psalm 82 and then how it works out with John 10. The biggest thing we need to emphasize and re-emphasize is that there's one God and one God only. Period.

End of subject. Yes, Satan in 2 Corinthians 4 is called the God of this age, and 1 Corinthians 8, there are many so-called gods and so-called lords, but for us there's one God, one Lord. So we need to stress that, we need to emphasize that, so there is absolutely no ambiguity, and that anyone else pretending to be called a god is a false god. So Exodus 15, michamocha adonai be'alim, who is like you, O Lord, among the gods. So yes, there are these so-called gods, but there's only one who is worthy of the definition of God, eternal, uncreated, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being.

There's one and one only. Everything else is created. So we need to reiterate that that is the overwhelming message of the Bible, that there is one creator and everything else, every other entity, physical, material, every other entity in the universe is created. There's only one uncreated God. So when Jesus says, you are gods, there's a challenge that he's bringing. In other words, he's exposing their error and said, look at the high standing that you had as being Jews to whom the Torah was given and to whom God entrusted judgment, hence you were called, eilim, gods. But the original setting of the psalm would have been God sitting above all of these other created beings, these angelic powers to whom judgment was entrusted.

In other words, you have a heavenly parallel and an earthly parallel, or a heavenly application and an earthly application. You know, there is judgment and warfare going on in the heavens. There is judgment and warfare going on on the earth. So the original context could have just as well been a Canaanite context, where El, the chief god, is presiding over the other gods. When it comes into scripture, it's God saying, no, I'm the god. I'm the god. And you others, so-called gods, you're going to die like men.

You're nothing. And then in the ongoing life of Israel, it's applied now to their earthly judges, who are also called Elohim in the book of Exodus, for example. And he's saying, you're going to fault me for being called son of God. You didn't even understand in your own scriptures you were called gods.

And here, I'm the one set apart by the Father. So the other thing is when Jesus quotes scripture and interacts with the people of the day, he's interacting often with their understanding. In other words, Psalm 110, when he says, how does David call the Messiah his Lord? Well, the text does not explicitly say Messiah, but there were streams of Jewish interpretation that understood that as David speaking about the Messiah.

So as we understand then that what Jesus is saying, the application to the Israelites as, quote, gods, was something that was a common interpretation in his day, and he's kind of challenging them with their calling and their failure to recognize his calling. If you look, and I often refer folks here, Nicholas, and just because I've answered the question about Psalm 82 a bunch of times, I'm not going to take more time, but I often refer folks to the NET Bible, if you've not used it. It's not my favorite translation. It's my favorite annotated translation, meaning using the notes, the translation notes, okay? So just go to NET Bible, NET, New England Translation, netbible.org, and then read online, click on that, it's free. And I'm looking right now, Psalm 82, got that on the left side, and then on the right side, it's got all the translation notes. Detailed, some presupposes you understand Hebrew and the grammar or Greek, et cetera. And it goes through the different ways of understanding here.

It goes through the explanation, and yeah, if you want to click on notes, NET notes, and you'll see all that data there. All right, keep digging, but key thing is never deviate from central truths of Scripture. All these other things are understood in a secondary way that supports the central truths. Let us go to Joe in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Welcome to the Line of Fire. Hey, Dr. Brown, how are we doing?

Doing well, thank you. I have about a hundred questions. Do we have time to get through all of them? Well, why don't we do a thousand, and this way we can just stay on until the next millennium. Yeah, but go ahead, give me your number one biggest one.

All right, hey, quick question. I know that we don't need to take a literal interpretation of all Scripture, but Francis Schaeffer, who was an agnostic, for example, on the exact dating of creation, has said that we must never give up a literal historical Adam and Eve, a fall from Eden, et cetera, and so on. But many evangelical teachers today, like William Lane Craig, for example, says that we don't need a historical creation, a historical Adam and Eve, a historical fall, or any part of that. So would you fall in line more with Schaeffer on this, and how far is too far in kind of a progressive interpretation of Scripture in your view? Like, can you have a Savior without a fall? And then just a really quick side question is just, if you plan on doing an update to how saved are we, I think that was literally an incredible book.

Well, thank you. So to answer the second question, I'm not planning on an update to How Saved Are We. It was written in a very intense time of seeking God and pursuing Him.

In 1990, I had just written End of the American Gospel Enterprise, which was my first book on revival. And then How Saved Are We followed that. Then after that, Whatever Happened to the Power of God, written with real intensity, passion. And with God really calling me deeper on every level, I had been immersing myself reading about the persecuted church and about missions. So the call to just give our lives for Jesus is very strong. Hence statements like, anyone who spends more time playing video games and seeking God has no right to call Jesus Lord. You think, that's extreme. What sounds extreme is I was writing it, except what I was understanding was if He's Lord, you're not listening to Him.

That was the right to call Him Lord by obeying. So it was, there's a certain intensity about it, and it was written during a certain season. And I feel it needs to stand as it is.

There's not a ton that ties in with, you know, data, statistics. There's some stuff, but most of it's a challenge from the Word. Now that being said, I'm writing a book now that should come out, God willing, September of next year called Revival or We Die, that will be in the same spirit as Gospel Enterprise and How Saved Are We and these other books.

Okay. As for your first question, the big question, I'm with Francis Schaeffer there. Now to be fair, I've not yet heard William Lane Craig articulate his views, so I don't want to respond without knowing exactly what he's saying. I believe we can debate the date of creation, and I would say that God's intent in Genesis 1 and 2, especially in Genesis 1, is not primarily to teach us scientific aeons or facts or time periods or days, but rather to teach us about God. The purpose of the creation stories in the ancient world is not so much to teach science, but to teach us about the God that people worshiped in here, the one true God, the transcendent God. But if there's not a literal Adam and Eve, if there's not a literal fall, then I believe we have major, major problems. So I would say that Scripture interprets itself.

So there's nothing to do with being progressive or anything else. It's that Scripture interprets itself, and Scripture everywhere indicates a real Adam and Eve. Scripture indicates a real fall with real consequences of the fall in time. Scripture indicates what happens subsequently. So if Adam and Eve are just parabolic figures, then what about Cain and Abel?

And what about all of their children? And what about the genealogy in Genesis 5, which is just a straight genealogy? So, yeah, to me, excuse me, Genesis 1, as intended and interpreted through the rest of Scripture, is telling us about, excuse me, the nature of God, who He is, how He operates, what His order is like, etc.

And it's not giving us a date. Now, it could, but I don't believe that's the intent of it. And there may be parabolic elements in a story. You know, if a talking snake is to be a parabolic, you know, whatever, the bottom line is, these things literally happen. The progenitors of the human race literally sinned, rebelled against God, were deceived by the ancient serpent, by Satan himself, bringing death and destruction on the human race. So I believe that's very important that we hold to that.

That William Lane Craig is an Orthodox believer in Scripture and the Gospel, I need to know exactly what he's saying before I respond to it adequately. All right, thank you for the call. 866-34-TRUTH. All right, we're not going to have a time. We're not going to have time for a full question before the break, so stay right there. I'm going to get to as many calls as I can on the other side of the break from Canada, LA, North Carolina, other places. And again, just that reminder, if you don't get our emails, by all means sign up. Oh, oh, are you watching on Facebook? If you enjoy the broadcast, click on the donate button.

Any gift of any size is appreciated. They do accumulate it. So just if you feel to do that, if you're watching on YouTube, there's a dollar sign under the chat box. You can click on that, or you can go to AskDr.Brown.org.

Askdrbrown.org. Click on donate and your gifts help us do everything we're doing and a whole lot more that we're going to do. By God's grace, it's time.

It's time to make greater impact for Jesus, all of us. All right, we'll be right back. Welcome, welcome to the Line of Fire, 866-342. By the way, for those who post comments on Facebook or YouTube as we're doing the show, we're not able to respond to those, just to let you know. But phone lines are open.

All right, let us start in Louisville, North Carolina, with Mark. Thanks for calling the Line of Fire. Hey, Dr. Brown, this is my second call to you, and I can't tell you how much you warmed my heart by doing these question and answer days.

Well, thank you. I have two scriptures I want to read to you. But first, I want to tell you that, as I shared with you before, I don't believe in pre-treat rapture, you don't either. But I also don't believe in a 1,000-year-old millennial kingdom.

And I would ask this question to all, everyone. How many raptures are there of the body of Christ? Secondly, in the Bible. Secondly, how many days of judgment are there on God's enemies?

And the answer to both of those should be one. Because if you believe in a 1,000-year millennial, when are the people at the end of the 1,000 years raptured? Well, Mark, who has to be raptured? Why is anyone going to be raptured?

Jesus is here on the earth. The saved have already been caught up to meet with the Lord. Now there's a 1,000-year reign, and then Revelation talks about the second resurrection, after the 1,000 years. So the first resurrection happens when the Lord returns and the dead and Messiah rise to meet him in the air. And the second resurrection is after the 1,000 years. I mean, Revelation tells us explicitly. And the word rapture we should just leave out.

Just leave that out, because that's not the focus. So there's two raptures of believers? Two resurrections. Not raptures. Resurrections. Wow, okay, I've never read that.

So hang on, let me just read it to you, okay? So, Revelation, chapter 20. So it says, Then I saw thrones, people seated on them, who were given authority to judge.

I also saw that people had been beheaded because of their testament about Jesus and because of God's word, who had not worshipped the beast or his image and not accepted the mark on their foreheads. They came to life and reigned with the Messiah for 1,000 years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were completed. This is the first resurrection. So the first resurrection is before the 1,000 years, and now 1,000 years later, that's when the rest of the dead come to life. That's the second resurrection. So it's pretty explicit. Yeah, but I would challenge anybody that when it says the first resurrect in Revelation 25, that is a spiritual rapture. That's the new birth. No, it's not.

That's not... Okay, so, Mark, hey, listen, I appreciate it. I appreciate the question.

And, you know, we try not to have, you know, when you mention remembering your first call, I wish I did, but we do chat with a lot of folks. But, I mean, you're free to call every so often, you know, to continue an argument, but we have to be on the same page, though, you know, so I just want to say explicitly that there's no, this is not a spiritual birth. Okay, there's people who were beheaded, who now come to life, and now 1,000 years later, the others come to life.

It's got to be the same. They came to life and reigned with the Messiah for 1,000 years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were completed. This is the first resurrection. So they were beheaded. They came to life because they were resurrected, reigned with Jesus for 1,000 years. The rest don't come to life again, not resurrected until the end of the 1,000 years. So we have to be consistent.

First resurrection, second resurrection, in the same passage have to mean the same thing. Hey, but I'm glad that it brightens your heart that we do these Q&A shows. God bless you, man. Thank you for calling in. 866-34-TRUTH, let's go to, let's stay in North Carolina. Greg and Carrie, welcome to the line of fire.

Hello, Dr. Brown. I have a question about King Saul. Do you believe that he was redeemed and he's in heaven now?

I hope so, but I don't know. He could very well be a lost soul. I mean, he was very much a lost soul in this world. Made some terrible mistakes, came under divine judgment. Do we have record of him repenting? Record of him getting right with God? Record of him dying as a true believer? No.

So I certainly hope that's the case. But, yeah, what would make you think he was? I don't know. I just, I mean, I guess I thought about it as I made the call, and I thought because he started out, he was chosen by God to be the king, but I think he was just a king and waited until David was crowned, because I don't think, I don't know if Saul was actually, I know God chose him, but I don't think he was really his choice. Am I correct in that, or am I wrong in saying that? Well, no, he was.

He was. In other words, God has to change his plan. Of course, God foreknows. But 1 Samuel 15, God says, okay, you know, I'm going to change my intent, because I was going to do this, but because of what you did, for example, with Eli and his sons, right, in 1 Samuel. God says, I intend, yeah, yeah, God says about Eli, he said, I intended, in Hebrew I said, but I intended for you and your sons to serve you.

This is going to be a lasting priestly dynasty, but because of sin, you're going to come under judgment, and your sons and future descendants are going to live under a curse. So if Saul had been humble, repentant to man after God's own heart, then the dynasty would have come through Saul. God had to find a better man because of Saul's failure. Of course, all foreknown to the Lord. But bear in mind, Greg, that Saul was being chosen as king. This is not a matter of individual salvation. He could have been saved or lost right with God or not right with God as king.

That would then affect his kingship and his rule and potential dynasty. But the man himself, we don't know. Boy, I mean, so many people that got these bad stories in scriptures, whenever I read through it again, it's like, oh, gosh, why didn't he get it right? It's just, it's tragic.

He starts well and he finishes very badly. But, you know, God's mercy is great, perhaps he turned to the Lord. Hey, hey, thank you. Thank you for asking. By the way, I know people love it when you give more definitive answers. But when the Bible doesn't tell you, what are you going to say? You want me to make something up? Right.

Which way do I go here? I'm not sure. Turn left and go a thousand miles and I think you'll find the right place. Now, if I'm not sure, I'll say, hey, we better pull a map out here.

We just don't have more data. All right. Somewhere in the vast expanse of Canada. Ben, welcome to the line of fire. Hi. Just a very quick question, and thank you very much for your work and all your resources that you put out there.

Yeah. What are your thoughts on—this is more for yesterday, I guess— the Jewish interpretation of the golden calf, and as well as a lot of other different sources, let's stick with the golden calf, that the golden calf wasn't actually a separate god that the Jewish people made, but that it was actually a replacement for Moses. And I was wondering if there are any Talmudic kind of interpretations that you actually hold as true whatsoever, and if you have a good resource for maybe debunking the validity of the Talmud or stories like that.

Nevertheless, those are very interesting stories, and I was wondering what your thoughts were on them. So first, just know that Jewish-related calls on Friday are perfectly kosher. It's non-Jewish calls on Thursday that don't fit, so you're good.

You're in the safe zone here with a Jewish call on Friday. So if you go to—to give you a resource, I just typed in golden calf Judaism, and a few entries down, I found the entry on Chabad, so Chabad.org, their article. So if you just type in Chabad, C-H-A-B-A-D.org, and then space golden calf, it should get you there. So this takes you through some of the traditional Jewish understanding.

Now, it was viewed as utterly calamitous, in that it was almost like a repeat of the fall in terms of the consequences of sin, in terms of what happened because of Israel's rebellion, and there are other rabbinic traditions that speak of the Israelites stoning, like some of the leaders, like Hur, or some of the other elders. So it's painted as a time of real rebellion. But there are obviously two main ways to read the text. Either this is your god, this is Yahweh. You want to worship a god because they made images of their gods, right? Any god had an image of some kind. This is your god, now in bodily form.

Baal would be associated with being a bull, or so here. This is your god. Or, this is an entirely new god. In other words, this is not a representation of Yahweh, but an entirely new god. The idea that in any way it was taking Moses' place, there's not a hint in the text of that. Rather, with Moses' absence, they wanted a physical presence. So when Moses was there, at least they had this man they could look to who represented God. Now with Moses gone, they needed a physical representation.

I mean, that you can deduce from the text. We don't know what happened to Moses, so let's do this. And you get into some of the psychology. The various Talmudic interpretations are interesting. In my own view, it's most likely that they made the golden calf as a representation of Yahweh, as opposed to an entirely different deity. And many scholars would agree with that.

And psychologically, you could say it was because of the absence of Moses. But the other rabbinic interpretation, it's just, again, it's interesting to look at. But it's not authoritative, and often it's just an interesting interpretation that we say, it's wrong, we differ with it.

Or there's no substance to it, or no authority behind it. If you want one volume that I wrote that challenges Talmudic authority and rabbinic authority, that is volume 5 of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus. Volume 5, so it's my series, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, volume 5, Traditional Jewish Objections. And systematically, I challenge the view of Talmudic authority and rabbinic authority and why I don't accept that as a New Testament follower of Yeshua. Volume 5, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus. All right, folks, have an awesome weekend, and in the midst of the chaos and craziness still taking place in America and the world, keep your eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. God bless you.