Lessons from the Feast of Dedication

Chanukah, the Feast of Dedication. What can we learn from it as believers today? Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. And with specific application to our situation today, how this applies to us as believers today.

This is Michael Brown. Welcome to our Thoroughly Jewish Thursday broadcast. Now we were into the beginning of Chanukah last week, and because we had pre-recorded that broadcast when I was away for the prayer retreat, I just failed to think ahead and realize it would be airing right during Chanukah. So we want to revisit now as we're at the end of the Chanukah season, the eight days, the Festival of Lights, which is mentioned in the New Testament in John the 10th chapter.

We want to draw some practical lessons, some practical inspiring application. But today, as always, on Thoroughly Jewish Thursday, we take your calls. So any question of any kind, as long as it is Jewish-related, Israel-related, Hebrew-related, your calls are welcome.

866-348-7884. 49 years ago today, by the mercy and grace of God, I surrendered to the Lord. I had believed for about five weeks, starting November 12th of 71, by God's miraculous intervention in my life. I had believed that Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead, but I stubbornly refused to repent. I knew God was real. I knew the way I was living was wrong, but it was shooting heroin one day, going to church the next, getting high all day one day, going to church the next, back and forth, back and forth, a battle for my soul. On December 17th of 71, I couldn't wait to get to the service that night.

I had started to make some decisions in the days leading up to it to really push away the drug domination in my life and make decisions to put God first, 16 and a half years old. And got to the service that night, and as we were singing these little ditty hymns, maybe 40 or 50 people there, pastor's wife playing piano and singing these hymns, I became so overwhelmed by the joy of the Lord. I mean, an experience I had never had, a level of joy that was ecstatic, that was different than any drug high, different than a sports high, different than a friendship high, different than a doing good high, whatever experiences I'd had, I realized this was qualitatively different. And I said to myself, this must be what they call the joy of the Lord, because the church talked about that a lot.

And we sang about it. I thought this must be what they call the joy of the Lord. And at that moment, I got a revelation of my sin. I saw myself as filthy from head to toe, filthy from head to toe, and grimy and dirty, filthy because of my sin. And I saw the blood of Jesus washing me clean. That was the forgiveness that God had purchased for me.

And I saw in my mind's eye, clear as day, and these beautiful white robes put on me, and I was going back out and playing in the mud. And the big thing that God was dealing with me about was the needle. That was the real addiction.

Yeah, I did drugs heavily, but I wasn't addicted to a specific drug. But the needle was the thing to say, I'll never put a needle in my life, in my arm again. That is what I knew God was calling me to surrender. And that night, as I realized the depth of God's love for me, and He had been heavily convicting me of sin for weeks leading up to this, convicting me of the wrongness of my lifestyle.

I mean, it got under my skin. I was wrong, guilty, but I didn't know how to get away from it, what was going on. And that night when I said, Lord, I'll never put a needle in my arm again. At that moment, all the guilt disappeared.

At that moment, the bondage was broken. Went home with my friends, took all my needles and drug paraphernalia, threw it over a bridge. Just, I remember thinking, if we get caught by police walking to the bridge, you know, what are you doing with needles and cocaine? It's like, I'm throwing it away, Officer.

Right. But we risked it. It's a few blocks, get to the bridge, tossed it over. And yeah, maybe it littered. Maybe that was litter.

Anyway, I want to get rid of it. And two days later, got convicted, you know, shouldn't get high in any way. That was it. What a journey. What an amazing journey. What amazing grace.

All right. So before we get to your calls, Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication. What goes on? What's the history?

What's the background? Let me take you over to the Jewish history website, Jewish history dot org and run through a few things, the most salient details that be really helpful to know and understand. So you remember we're talking about the mid second century B.C., the 160s. OK, so Jewish history website says that Hanukkah was a miraculous military victory, but a tiny cruise of oil proved more miraculous and enduring in the memory of the Jewish people, hence the lighting of the Hanukkah candles for the eight days of Hanukkah. By the way, if you have what's called the Hanukkiah in your home, many people refer to it as menorah. Menorah is really the the the seven branch candlestick in the in the temple.

The Hanukkiah is is nine branches, the eight days of Hanukkah and then the one that's called the Shamash that that lights the others. So Jewish history website tells us in the wake of Alexander's appearance in a departure from Jerusalem. So Alexander, the great, great triumph and relations, you know, Jews practicing their religion in the the Alexandrian Empire in the wake of Alexander's appearance in a departure from Jerusalem, relations between Jews and Greeks were so good then an exchange of cultures took place. Each influenced the other.

For the Jewish minority, however, what began as a small undertow of assimilation, such as giving children Greek names and speaking the Greek language, became a surprisingly powerful high speed rip current threatening to drag the cut off guard Jews out to the sea of complete assimilation. All right, so what happens is and will culminate in the 160s, this is an earlier period, is that, you know, the world it's sophisticated and appealing and a little taste here, a little taste there. Before you know it, you're swallowed up by the world. It's interesting that the world generally doesn't look at the church and say, oh, they are so cool. I want to be cool like them. But the church looks at the world says, oh, the world is so cool. I want to be cool like them. People come to meet the Lord because they realize something's wrong and they need God and we have God.

They don't come to us because we're cool. All right, so Jews who embraced Greek culture at the expense of Judaism became known as Missianim or Hellenists. Estimates are that a third or more, Missiavnim, right, so from the word for Greek, estimates that a third or more of the Jewish population was Hellenists, including those who reverse their circumcision. What? Reverse their circumcision.

Yes. Why? It's painful enough to be circumcised. Reverse the circumcision? Literally with a surgery?

Yes. Why? Because things like Olympic type games were conducted in the nude. So if you're a male and you want to play in the games, well, you want everyone to know you're a Jew. You're circumcised.

You're one of them. So you have to assimilate. Now, how do we do it? In what ways do we assimilate? In what ways do we kind of suppress our believing identity, our identity in Jesus to be more like the world? Doesn't Paul say that the reason that some Jewish believers in the first century were preaching circumcision, telling the Gentiles you have to be circumcised to avoid the reproach of the cross? So in Jewish circles, the cross brought one reproach, and then in Hellenistic circles, being a Jew brought reproach. So they reversed their circumcision.

They ate pork. They went out of the way to show we're just like the world, bowed to idols, and then became self-hating enough to side with the enemies of Israel. Hellenism threatened to annihilate the Jewish world through assimilation in ways tyrants tried but could not do by force.

Had the situation continued as it was, the Greeks would perhaps have won the battle by default. However, they overstepped themselves, as often happens, and then God's people wake up. By the way, in America today, the greatest threat to the future of the Jewish people is assimilation. Assimilation. At the beginning of the year, 190 BCE, so before the Common Era, the situation between the two great post-Alexandrian empires, the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic deteriorated badly.

The Seleucids mounted an invasion that took their army through the land of Israel, which is sandwiched in between. Whenever a foreign army comes into a country, it changes the view of the populace. Instead of an attractive culture, the Greeks were now an occupying enemy. Instead of something to be imitated, they now became something to be resisted.

Ah, make application in our society. When those that, oh, it's appealing in the world, now the world starts to take over, now it's something to be resisted. The Jewish people are very stubborn. The same person who is so stubborn that he will not observe the Torah in freedom will observe it with passion if forbidden from observing it. He becomes stubborn the other way.

Alright, skip down. The Greek army exerted a very heavy hand against the Jews. First, they forced Jews to finance their war through collection of taxes. Then they forced them to quarter their soldiers in Jewish homes. Finally, the Greeks were determined to crush the Jewish religion.

First, they took the statue of Zeus and mounted it in the courtyard of the temple. Next, the Greeks banned the observance of the Sabbath on the pain of death. Then the Talmudic 3b records there was a period of time which lasted a number of decades when the Greek officer in town had the right to, quote, live with a woman on her wedding night before her husband-to-be. The Greeks also banned circumcision. Whoever circumcised his child was put to death.

Both child and father were killed. The Greeks demanded that altars to the Greek idols be established and that sacrifices be offered on a regular basis in every Jewish town. Finally, the Jewish educational system was entirely erupted. And about year 166 BCE, a group finally stood up to the Greeks Matisyahu and his family known as the Hasmoneans.

We do not know, and ultimately the Maccabees. We do not know much about them except that they were of noble descent from the priestly class including those who served as high priests. They lived in a small town called Modin which is about 12 miles northwest from Jerusalem. One day a Greek contingent marched in, set up an altar, gathered all the Jews, forced them to sacrifice a pig to Zeus. Then they asked for a Jewish volunteer to perform the sacrifice. One step forward, as he approached the altar, Matisyahu stabbed him to death. Chaos broke out. The Greek army attempted to subdue the crowd, but the Jews were armed and slaughtered the entire Greek patrol. There was no turning back now. Matisyahu had five sons, all of whom were people of great organizational leadership, as well as pious committed Jews.

And this is how it goes. They organized a force of 3,000 men, then it grows to 6,000. Never reached more than 12,000 men. Many of these men paid with their death. This is what brought about the liberation of the Jewish people and the rededication of the Temple and the miraculous cruise of oil being preserved for eight days until more oil came. It's a lesson for today against assimilation to the world and a call to courage. Oh, not a violent uprising, but a courageous pushback against the culture of the day.

Some lessons to learn, though. We'll be right back. 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. Beautiful, ultra-orthodox Jewish voices singing the psalms, one who keeps Israel in neither slumber nor sleep.

Let us pray for our friends in the Jewish community. All right, we go to the phone starting in Cleveland, Ohio. Gavin, welcome to the line of fire. Hey Michael, how you doing today? Very well, thank you. Hey, I got some more fun Targum questions.

Yeah. So clearly in Isaiah 9 they mentioned the Messiah by name, but there's a kind of a different insertion by the Targumist, and he says before he mentioned for us, a child is born, a son is given, he inserts the prophet said to the house of David. And I'm wondering, do you think that in a way calls back to Isaiah 7?

Because in Isaiah 10 he inserts the prophet, and again there it talks about the house of David and then obviously the son. Right, so for those listening to explain the question of the Targum, is the ancient Aramaic translation slash paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible? It arises as an oral tradition in the synagogue, in places where Hebrew was not understood as well, and Aramaic became the normal language, the lingua franca that was spoken among the people. So traditions would develop in the synagogue as the Hebrew was read, then afterwards the Aramaic paraphrase would be given or translation.

It gets looser as time goes on, and eventually these things are written down, and if you have what's called the rabbinic Bible today, Mikraot Kedolot, which is multi-volume, Mikraot Kedolot means big scriptures, you'll see on the top of the page the biggest print is the text of the Hebrew Bible, then next to that the Targum, the Aramaic, and then beneath that in smaller print the rabbinic commentaries. So Targums are read as sacred literature, not inspired on the same level as scripture, but it does shape a lot of interpretation. So the question is why would the Targum add in that this is what's being said to the house of David, and then it does specifically mention the birth of the Messiah. It interprets the passage overall differently attributing most of the names to God, like God the Mighty One, etc. We'll call his name Sarshalom, Prince of Peace, but otherwise it recognizes it as a messianic prophecy. So the way that I would then check to see if in fact this was an insertion of great importance, why does it say the house of David there, which is what we have twice in Isaiah the seventh chapter, and that's not a common phrase in the book of Isaiah. Is it tying in with Isaiah 7? I would number one say I strongly doubt it, simply because there is no ancient Jewish tradition that we have that identifies Isaiah 7 as a messianic prophecy. However, the simple way to do it, and I'll do it during the break, is you just do a search in Targum Jonathan for house of David in Isaiah, and you see where else he puts it, and how often he puts it, and is there any significance to it.

So it's an excellent question. In other words, it makes perfect sense, because that's where you have it in this context of Isaiah 7 through 11. You only have house of David mentioned there twice in Isaiah 7, and not elsewhere in this, but otherwise it's clearly a word to the Davidic dynasty in Isaiah 9.

I mean that's the obvious logic behind it. Were you able to do a search for it or no? Oh yeah, my wife is going to kill me with how much I spend on these Islamic ice pogroms, but anyway, yeah, so Isaiah 7-2, Isaiah 7-13, Isaiah 8-6, Isaiah 9-6, and Isaiah 22-22. So it's basically in that cluster and then 22-22. Well, 22-22 is in the Hebrew, correct? And the other two in Isaiah sever in the Hebrew. Off the top of my head, it's Isaiah 8, which is not in the Hebrew, house of David, and Isaiah 9. Those are the two, because the other is the two in Isaiah 7 and then right in 22, those are the house of David passages in Isaiah. Yeah, so the question is why is it inserted there, Isaiah 8?

Let's just say this though, okay? Regardless of why, it does bring a continuity in the chapters. And then of course Isaiah 11 quite blatantly about the Messiah son of David is identified as, you know, the root from Jesse. So I have argued that when Matthew quotes it in Matthew 1, when he quotes Isaiah 7-14, that he has in mind Isaiah 7-11. And we see references to it in a hidden way in the second chapter and moreover way in the fourth chapter of Matthew. So at the very least, if you were reading this through, right, as a reader reading the Targum, you would see this theme, house of David, house of David, house of David, house of David, four times, twice in the seventh chapter, once in the eighth, once in the ninth, and that would bring a sense of continuity. But has anyone, you know what, do you have Bruce Chilton's book on the Targum, Isaiah Targum?

No. All right, well tell you what, I will, I only got a couple of books about it. I'll see if he makes anything out of that, but that's very interesting. So I appreciate the question and you did your homework, now I'll do a little more of mine, okay? All right, sounds good. Sure thing. And tell your wife it's a good expense. If she asks when is it going to end, say actually it really does it, it's kind of like an obsession, but anyway.

But basic tools though, you get some basic software tools and then you're set for a while. All right, thank you for the call 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go over to Sims in McAllen, Texas. Welcome to The Line of Fire. Thank you, Dr. Brown.

Thank you again for taking my call. I got an interesting question from my wife a few days ago relating to Daniel Seven. At first I thought, you know, she just wanted to understand the chronology of the 70 weeks because that's what she seemed to be referring to, but her question, I guess, is a little bit more basic than that, and that what she wants to know is why is it that each one of the 70 weeks is being taken as seven years? Like, I guess, upon what basis do we have to assume that, you know, each week meant seven years in terms of prophecy? Right, so in Daniel 9 verses 24 to 27, the 70 weeks, why do we just say, well, they're certainly years?

So I love the fact that she asked the question because many times we just take something for granted. You know, well, there must be a reason because that's how we all interpret it. And then many times when you dig deeper, you think, oh, well, there is a reason or there isn't a reason. So here are the reasons that it's taken to be periods of years. Number one is that Daniel is praying about the 70 years in exile. And if you remember, the 70 years in exile, God had said that there would be one year for every Sabbath year that had been neglected. The 70 years stood for 490 years, where every seven years they neglected the annual Sabbath, etc. The Sabbath of the land wasn't kept, so now it was going to rest for 70 straight years. So it was making up for Israel's sin over a period of 490 years.

That's the first thing. So the 70 years that Daniel is praying about, if you read, for example, in 2 Chronicles 36, and then even the curses in Leviticus 26, but especially 2 Chronicles 36, you'll get that understanding. So that's number one, that the 70 years in exile were for 490 years of neglecting the seventh year Sabbath every year for 490 years.

That's number one. Number two, it doesn't use the normal word for week, but rather for seven. So it's saying seventy sevens, not just 70 weeks, seventy sevens, making that even clearer. The third thing is, what is being described could not happen in a period of 490 days.

The rebuilding of the temple and the city and all of the events that are going to transpire could not happen in that short a period of time. So that's the next reason that we take it to mean years. And then in Daniel, the tenth chapter, Daniel talks about going on a particular fast for three weeks of days. He seems to specify I'm talking about regular weeks again.

So it's putting those things together. The 70 years had to do with a period of disobedience for 490 years. The nature of the events that took place could not happen in a shorter period of time of just regular weeks. And then Daniel speaking of of weeks of days immediately after that. So the logical understanding then is rather than weeks of days, there are weeks of years or septades of years. And then when you look at what ultimately unfolds over that period of time, right, when you look at what transpires, it now it now works because it's it's from the rebuilding of the city and the temple to the time of the destruction of the temple.

And you look at that period of time, it's hard it's hard to know exactly where it starts, but you think, okay, you're dealing with like roughly 500 year period there, so it unfolds and it makes sense. So that's the reasoning behind it. It's clearly deduced from the text, although not absolutely explicit, all right?

All right, much appreciated. When she first asked me the question, my first thought was to go to volume three of Answering Jewish Objections with Jesus, but then she hit me with, okay, why is it weeks? That was her question. So yeah, and that's helpful. Yeah, excellent.

Yeah. And I love the fact you're studying scripture together and you went to the right place. Volume three of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, where we deal with objects, Jewish, Jewish objections to Messianic prophecy and of course have a whole section and gender line 24 to 27.

But because that's not a real Jewish objection, in other words, traditional Jews accept that these are 70 weeks of years as well, for the most part as the Christian scholars. So that didn't come up. So great. We got to cover that as well. All right, we come back. Let's see our friend Manny in Brooklyn. You're next.

We come back. Hey, everybody, my book, Resurrection, investigating a rabbi from Brooklyn, a preacher from Galilee, an event that changed the world. I just discovered last night it's on sale on Kindle. So an e-book, the Kindle app for any system you have or any smartphone or tablet.

$4.99. Yeah, I mean, authors get nothing when this happens. So I'm just I'm just telling you so you can take advantage of it. Resurrection. It's an eye-opening book. It looks at false messiahs in Jewish history and how there's only one who really rose. It's a fascinating read and it's super cheap now. Just look for my name, Michael Brown and Resurrection on Amazon. Get the Kindle version.

Cheap. 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 Line of Fire. It is thoroughly Jewish Thursday. And there we go, some other music coming in, but it is Line of Fire. It is thoroughly Jewish Thursday.

This is Michael Brown. Delighted to be with you. How I love taking your questions, interacting and studying, learning, diving in together. I'm a lifelong pursuer of truth. Love the truth. The truth, Jesus said, sets us free, especially when it's divine truth. 866-34-TRUTH is the number to call.

And it's our friend Manny in Brooklyn. So nice to hear from you again. So what's on your mind today? I thought I'd challenge you on your views on Haggai, the second chapter, that the glory of the second temple will be greater than the first. Your interpretation is that the second temple's glory is the Messiah coming to it, as opposed to perhaps a physical... Right. So how about if I read the text for everybody, okay?

Then you can challenge my view on it. So Haggai, the second chapter, just a little book in the Bible with a powerful message. And Haggai's encouraging them to rebuild the second temple.

And we'll start in verse six, and I'm reading from the new JPS version. For thus said the Lord of hosts, in just a little while longer, I'll shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. I'll shake all the nations and the precious things of all the nations shall come here and I will fill this house with glory, said the Lord of hosts. Silver is mine, gold is mine, says the Lord. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former one, said the Lord of hosts.

And in this place, I will grant prosperity or grant peace, declares the Lord of hosts. So my understanding is that yes, silver and gold come to beautify the temple, especially in the time of Herod, but that the glory that's spoken of is the divine glory. And that when that temple was... The second temple was dedicated, it did not... And the Talmud recognizes this, it did not have the divine fire, did not have the Shekhinah, did not have the Ark of the Covenant, Urim and Tumen. So how was the glory of the second temple greater than the glory of the first? My answer is that the Messiah came in his glory and then sent the spirit there, poured out his spirit at that place after his resurrection. That would explain the glory because with the dedication of the first temple and the tabernacle, the glory of God was there in a manifest way, and rabbinic interpretations would be that it referred to the physical, beautifying, or perhaps the longer duration of the second temple to the first. So all over to you, sir. Yes, so you mentioned what I heard you said, precious things of the nations.

I heard you mention silver and gold. That is the clear context of the verse. Any other interpretation you have regarding the Messiah is a personal interpretation or homo-litical. It's not from the context that seems very clear. It's talking about physical beauty. One other point is that earlier on in the chapter, it addresses the people who formerly have seen the first temple and said, you know, in its glory. And now, I don't think it's talking about the time of Solomon. I think it's probably talking about, you know, in the days of maybe Zachariah or, I'm gonna say, the last king, what's his name, Zedekiah, and, you know, his predecessors before, where there was lots of idolatry involved. So I don't think that it's really talking about, you know, the spirit. I think it's more talking about the physical properties of the temple. Right, and it does mention its former kavod, so who saw that.

So that's a very good contextual argument. So you have kavod mentioned earlier in the chapter, glory, and who saw the former glory, the glory of the second temple is going to be greater. And then you have specific reference to silver and gold, which is also important, and definitely there in the context, definitely the beautifying of the temple. So saying that the glory of the second temple would be greater than the first, you could say it's obviously physical splendor.

And then just to clarify one other thing in your argument, and then I want to ask you a couple of questions, okay? When God says the glory of this silver is gold, let me back up, I'll shake all the nations, precious things of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory. Elsewhere in the Bible, as you know, when God speaks of filling the house with glory or the house being filled with glory, it's always talking about his presence, his glorious presence. Why do you think it's different here, whereas elsewhere, in other words, any time you have, it's not a common phrase, but the phrase fill with glory, or fill with my glory, or God's glory, it's always talking about his physical manifest presence, as in the tabernacle in Alexis 40, or the first temple in 2 Chronicles 5.

Why do you feel free to interpret it differently there? Well, first of all, I just want to clarify what you mean by glory. When God fills glory, you're talking about only the temple and tabernacle, or you're talking about in general, whenever God fills glory over anything? Well, when it uses the term that he's going to fill a place with glory, it's never talking about physical splendor, but rather his presence, his manifest power. Well, I'd just say the context.

The context is talking about physicality, physical glory. It's talking about, it seems to me, talking about a political upheaval, because it does talk about that God will shake, you know, the heavens and stuff like that, which lots of times in scripture refers to political upheaval, like perhaps Isaiah chapter 13. But I don't see any reason to limit, because one of the things it does is to, like, your interpretation would limit the time when the Messiah has to come. My interpretation wouldn't limit such a thing. So I'm not looking to limit, you know, certain things in scripture. So could it be that there was something more spiritual in the temple?

Could be, but there's no reason to say so, unless you're doing, you know, madrashic interpretations and stuff like that. But those stuff, you know, you can't really prove. It's just personal, and either you accept it or you don't, you know. Now, you would agree that if God was putting a limitation on something in scripture, that you would accept it. If that was the plain sense, then if God was putting a timetable, you'd accept it if God was putting it. You don't want me to put it there when it's not there, but if God put it there, you accept it.

Okay. But in this case, it seems the context is very clear, talking about silver, gold, and the precious things of nations, which the New Revised Standard Version interprets very plainly, the treasures of the nations, which seems to be more of a commentary. Yeah, we're talking about physical stuff. I mean, I see no reason why it's interpreted spiritually. Right, so do you think you have more insight than the Talmudic rabbis? Maybe, maybe not, especially with regard to chronology. I might have some more insights on that. Okay, so we've got to, yeah, so let's, aside from Seder Elam and those questions, and rabbinic chronology, in terms of just general spiritual insight and into the meaning of Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, do you think you have more insight than the ancient sages, the Tanaim and the Amoraim, etc.? I don't think I have more in regards to, I would say, the halacha, because they have authority over Jewish law and stuff like that, but I have no problem, you know, disregarding a rabbinic commentary or even the midrashim, or the word the chazal, in certain instances, if there's, you know, very good evidence against it. Okay, so that's a whole other subject.

You know, you told me that some of your friends think you depend on Rambam and his rationalism too much, so this is a bit more extreme, you know, in that sense, you're less less Hasidic. But the reason I asked is because you know that the Talmud tries to figure out the meaning, and there's actually a dispute over this, and the one view is that the Second Temple stood longer than the first. If it's so obvious, why didn't they all see it? I think they actually did. If you look at both interpretations, it's both in the physical terms.

The only question is, is it physical in how long it lasted, the amount of time, or is it only long about the height? That's you getting into hermeneutics, but they're not. Okay, and if you're there, we didn't cut you off. Let me just, we had a weird thing happen yesterday where we lost our audio feed from the studio. So guys, go to work on whatever's going on here.

Two off. And if you were answering me, and it looked like you had no answer, and I just stumped you or something like that, it was not a setup. It's not a setup to make me look good and make you look bad. So we are, we're just gonna, I'm gonna keep talking so many, stay there, all right? Stay there while we try to work on this, on the tech side. But what I'm gonna do is explain my reason for not agreeing with Manny here, okay? And if you're still there, we'll come back to you on the other side of the break if we need to, but we'll try to resolve things that aren't. But I wanna say again, it looks like I just stumped Manny. I asked a question and there's no answer. It could have been he was pausing for a moment, and at that moment, we lost our feed. You're still hearing me.

But if Manny had no answer, he's got some extra time to think about it, okay? But the reason that I don't just accept, well, it's obvious, the context talks about the former glory, the former kavod. Now it says the second temple will have greater kavod than the first.

You saw the earlier kavod. Well, the people that were there, the old people that had seen the first temple, Solomon's temple in all of its glory and splendor, right? They didn't see it when it was dedicated and the fire of the Lord consumed the sacrifices. They didn't see it when it was dedicated and the glory of the Lord filled the sanctuary so the priest couldn't even enter and minister.

So what they saw was the physical building and its physical kavod, its physical splendor. The second temple was a shell of it and God said, no, I'm going to shake the nations. The silver and gold are going to come and the glory, the kavod, say, splendor of the second temple will be greater than the first. So it's just Herod's beautifying of it later on.

That's all it's talking about. Nothing to do with coming of the Messiah in our argument that how could the glory of the second temple be greater than the glory of the first when all these other things were missing? My answer is simple that God says that he will fill the temple with glory and in point of fact that if you look at that phrase specifically in conjunction with the dedication of the tabernacle and the dedication of Solomon's temple, it refers to the literal manifest presence of God. How on earth, how on earth would God say the glory of the second temple is going to be greater than the first when the presence, the manifest presence of God was not there in any way that compared to the first temple or the tabernacle?

Remember it's just silver and gold makes the temple glorious? That's right, have a difference. All right, hopefully we'll reconnect with Manny and get you to the cause on the other side of the break. It's the Line of Fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker and theologian, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice of moral, cultural and spiritual revolution. Get into the Line of Fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome back to the Line of Fire.

Hopefully, back with Manny. Are you still there, sir? Yes, I'm here. Ah, okay, so yeah, so sorry about what happened. This is the second day this week we had something like this go on, but it sounded as if I stumped you. I asked the question and there was nobody there. Well, maybe you did.

Yeah, so anyway, you got a little extra time to think about it. Yeah, if it's so clear and you make a good argument for it, right, why do you think in the Talmud there's a debate about it and other rabbis reject that interpretation? So the only time I've seen this in the Talmud, and I haven't yet seen everything, is in Baba Bafra 3a.

And the context of it, it's talking about the amount of height of a wall and the necessity of how wide it would have to be in different logistic. And it talks about, you know, the building of the temple in regards to what, you know, scripture says about, you know, how high the temple was. And then the question is then why in the second temple didn't we have something similar? And one person says, well, the second temple was a little bit larger or bigger.

And he said, well, how do we know that it was bigger? And, you know, as the Talmudic rabbis like to do, they like to usually bring the proof from scripture. But one of them brings the proof from scripture that it was higher based on the verse. I guess the other ones didn't agree, and he held that maybe with the same height, and therefore had to interpret it differently. But they don't disagree that, first of all, this is a little bit more madrasic, what the rabbis are saying.

The rabbis, it's not like Rashi, it's not so much a commentary, it's more of like a very deductive, you know, much more madrasic style. But the simple reading, I don't think any of them would disagree that just in general the second temple was greater in length and height and money and value, you know, like this other person says in the Talmud, he who has not seen the building of, you know, Herod, hasn't seen a nice building, you know. So it looks like then we've got to invest another book in your library from me, all right? So in volume one of answering Jewish objections to Jesus, which is very general material, but the second half of that deals with historical objections, and objection 2.1, I take up the issue of peace on earth and the Messiah's coming, etc., and I get into this discussion. So have you not read the discussion in Yoma 21b? Because it lists, the rabbis point out there that there were five items missing from the second temple that were in the first. So this is coming up because you had divine fire, you had God's presence, right? And now you don't have it in the second temple. And in the first temple it's associated with His glory. The tabernacle, it's associated with His glory. So my question is, is it now that the glory of God that was so prominent in the first temple and the tabernacle and the manifest visible presence of God, that that now becomes kind of, well, secondary as long as you have silver and gold? So the list, Rat Yishchina, the Holy Spirit, divine fire, and the ark with the mercy seat in cherubim, all missing. So silver and gold make up for that?

No, I don't think so. Maybe that's what the rabbis thought in Yoma. I haven't seen the passage in Yoma. But it's not talking about people who witnessed the first temple in the days of Solomon. It's talking about people who witnessed the temple in the end of times. And I don't have a source for this, but I highly doubt that the shekhinah was fully there when people were offering, you know, sacrifice or idolatry during that time.

I think it was like halfway down. No, but the whole point is, and if you don't mind, I'll send you another book, how's that? And you can look at the relevant parts. By the way, I have a friend who's a former Haredi, ultra-orthodox Jew, who's a follower of Yeshua. And he was listening to our conversation of the call last time about God's triunity, etc. And I wonder if you might ever want to interact privately.

You know, he's a very private person, as you would be in terms of these issues. But maybe one day there's a way to put your correspondence. But listen, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to send you the first volume of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, volume one. So we did send you something previously. We should have your address.

But Rachel, get it to be sure, because I said we're not putting you on a list or anything like that. And then look at my argument. Look at the rabbinic sources. But in particular, look at the Hebrew, because my point is, when God says I will fill this with glory, it's very specific language. So yes, silver and gold. Yes, shaking of the nations. Yes, abundance coming in. Yes, beautifying the temple.

Absolutely yes to all of that. But there must be something more, because filling with glory, remember, this is a very specific timeframe. It's the time of the dedication of the temple, right? What happened when Solomon dedicated his temple and the words fill with glory were used? Very specific. When Moses dedicated the tabernacle, fill with glory, what happened? Something very specific to use those same words now with a totally different meaning. Now to me, that's madrashic rather than saying, how is this word used? What would it have meant to the people then?

So I'm saying both and yes, a physical beautifying, but there had to be something more. Hey, thank you for the call. God willing, we will keep the dialogue going. All right, let us go to Saul in Roseville, California.

Thanks for holding. Welcome to The Line of Fire. Shalom, Dr. Brown. Shalom. Hi, so I just have a question about Luke chapter 9 verses 19, and I've heard many Christian teachers teach that Gilgo-Neshamot, the reincarnation, is not found in the Bible, and that ancient rabbis didn't need to teach it. And so my question to you is, either maybe you haven't, I'm guessing you've studied, you know, Simon bar Yochai and Maimonides and Maimonides and many of the Jewish rabbis who teach Gilgo-Neshamot. And the question is... Where does Shimon bar Yochai teach it? In the Zohar. Ah, but he didn't write the Zohar. That's a mythical attribution. He's early second century, and the Zohar is a 13th century production, so it's mythically attributed to him. But there's not a stitch of historical evidence that he is the author of the Zohar. No, he's not the author. His teachings were transposed through the Zohar, through rabbi, through student, and through disciples.

That's a mythical... I mean, you could say the same thing about the New Testament. Jesus didn't write anything either. But the point is that we know for sure, here's the difference, we know for sure that the eyewitnesses who were there with him in their lifetimes wrote down what happened, versus over a thousand years later, a whole new theology arises that cannot in any way be traced back to the historical person.

I mean, there's no possible way you can make that comparison. So my main question is, why would a Christian teacher teach that reincarnation was not taught by the Jews if the Jews around Jesus himself all believed he was a reincarnation of a prophet? Everybody knew Jesus had a mom. He didn't fall out of the sky. He wasn't carried in a chariot, right? And so they believed that he was a prophet from old, risen back to life again. And the only way they believed that he was risen back to life again was through the womb.

And that's because of the ancient Hebrew doctrine of living through your sons, living through your seed. So let me just ask you one quick question first, okay? Have you called to raise this point before? Yes. Did you call using the same name? Yes. No, my name is Brandon Saul, and I introduced myself as Brandon Saul last time. Okay, got it.

Just wondering, very specifically, because I would have remembered Saul with this same point. But here's the issue. It wasn't the same question, by all means, but yeah. Well, it was a related question. Right, right. So would you like my academic answer to your question? Yes.

Right. We have some evidence that some Jews in the first century may have believed in some type of reincarnation or something where someone from a previous generation could be manifested later. That's the only hint we have. We have zero hint in any ancient Jewish document outside of that.

Zero ascitation beyond it. The strongest reference being in the ninth century, where the leading rabbinic scholar in Judaism called it complete foolishness. And no evidence of this really rising into Lurianic Kabbalah, where it really becomes prominent. Are you saying that Moses Maimonides also espoused Gilgal? Yes, he interpreted the book of Job chapter 33 verses 29 through, well, verses really 20 through 30, but he interpreted Job 33 as a reincarnation, yes. Literally as reincarnation. Well, if you read Job 33, Eli, who is rebuking Job and his friends for saying that he was sinless and how he was... No, no, I understand that.

Yeah, I understand. And where does he do that? If you go to verse 29, and if you go to verse 29 and 23... Maimonides didn't write a commentary on Job. Where are you saying that Maimonides gave that interpretation? So, I believe that it's in the Talmud. Maimonides is 1135 to 1204, sir. That's 500 years after the completion of the Talmud. Yeah, correct, he studied Kabbalah and all that.

Yes. Maimonides was not a Kabbalist. I tell you what, get your evidence in order. Get your evidence in order. Get your evidence in order. Let's get away from myths and fables. We can have a discussion, but you've got to get your evidence in order because when you present it like this, it undercuts the point you're trying to make. All right, God bless friends, back with you and your questions tomorrow.