Dr. Brown Answer Your Questions on Biblical Verses and Biblical Languages

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

The following is a prerecorded program. You've got questions. We've got answers.

Let's do this. It's time for The Line of Fire with your host, activist, author, international speaker, and theologian, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Michael Brown is the director of the Coalition of Conscience and president of Fire School of Ministry. Get into The Line of Fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH. That's 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Hello, friends.

Welcome. Welcome to a special edition of The Line of Fire. I know it's Friday, but I'm not taking calls today. Instead, we're digging into the Scriptures, questions that were posted on Twitter and Facebook. I solicited them Tuesday night, and there's some great, great questions.

Really fascinating. Sit back, enjoy the broadcast, and we're going to start over on Twitter, where I ask the question, hey, post for me your best Bible questions, Hebrew, Greek questions, and we're going to dive in on the show. So we're going to start with a question from Matthew. Regarding 1 Kings 19, 9, that's where Elijah goes in the cleft of the rock and in a cave, and God speaks to him.

Are you aware of a Jewish source predating Megillah 19b, so this is in the Babylonian Talmud, that teaches that the cave Elijah was in was one and the same as the cleft Moses. Okay, Matthew, I'm not aware of any Jewish source before this, before what's recorded in Megillah 19b. Now, again, Babylonian Talmud, it can be passing on a tradition that goes back to the times of Jesus. It could be passing on a tradition that comes four or five hundred years after the time of Jesus. So, Talmud dating is notoriously difficult, but a source earlier than this, no, I'm not aware of any.

They may exist, but I'm not aware of them. Now, what's interesting is if you look at some of the major rabbinic commentaries, these are from about 900 years ago, 800 years ago, if you look at some of the major rabbinic commentaries, they will point to the Targum, to the Aramaic translation and paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures. And they will point back to the Targum, to Exodus 33, where it mentions, it specifically speaks of the rock in such a way that it would give you the indication that it could be similar to the cave. But the Targum does not make that explicit. As far as I can see, they're quoting it in support of the idea, but you still have to read it in. Does it go back to some Targumic thinking that the tradition goes back that far?

Possibly. But in terms of something that's more explicit, where the verses are put side by side, to my knowledge, the earliest time is in the Babylonian Talmud. Okay, let's go over to Paul's question. What is the best way to translate Genesis 14, 19? There seems to be a divide in translation, whether it should be Blessed be Abraham by God, Most High, or to God, or of God.

And Paul says, to me it seems, given the blessing formula, the by-God option is best, and even the Septuagint takes this route. So the Hebrew is le, le-el el-yon, to God Most High. The question is, does that le mean to, or of, or by? The NET argues that it should mean by, that when you have a passive participle first, so baruch, a passive participle, followed by le, then it is blessed by.

That's what it means. But here's what's interesting. If you survey different translations, the Aramaic just reproduces it with le as well, the Targum, as does, I believe, the Syriac, if I'm correct.

But here's what's interesting. If you look at modern translations, we'll go back to King James, Blessed be Abram of the Most High, it's definitely not to, it's either of or by. Blessed be Abram of God Most High, New King James, NASB, Blessed be Abram of God Most High, ESV, by God Most High, CSB, by God Most High, NIV, by God Most High, the New JPS, of God Most High. There's a very strong understanding of Hebrew there, and they come up differently.

TLV, Blessed be Abraham, by el-yon, which is God Most High, and let's see, the NLT, Blessed be Abraham, by God Most High, NRSV, by RSV, by, and then the NET, by. You could make a good argument for it, again, based on the grammatical argument of the NET, that says, if you have the passive participle, blessed, so blessed, right, followed by le, the preposition le, then it is blessed by. But you can't say definitively that it means that.

It could be the most likely rendering, and the most common modern rendering, but is Melchizedek there blessing this Abram who belongs to God Most High? It's possible. It's just not the likeliest. So, most likely by, as you argue, but can't say definitively. All right, let's see. Berean Barometer. Okay, now you've got a few questions here, but I'll answer one.

If I have time later in the show, I'll come back to another. What are some common misconceptions and misunderstandings about Hebrew that often are made by those who are in their early stages of studying it? Bonus, if you can explain the difference between the kal, perfect, versus the yikto, imperfect. I'm told it's not past, future in English.

Okay. Common misconceptions about Hebrew would be one that it's like a magical language. In other words, that every word is pregnant with all kinds of extra meaning and so on and so forth. Hebrew is a Canaanite dialect. In Isaiah 19, it's called the lip or the language of Canaan. Elsewhere, it's called Judean. So, it was a Canaanite dialect. It's very similar to, very close to Phoenician, Moabite. These were other Canaanite dialects. It's similar to Ugaritic, although with more differences there. So, it's not like a magical language.

That's one thing. Another thing is that because there is a strong root system, that the root meaning will always adhere on every level. Sometimes there's more transformation of a root meaning than is often understood. But, you know, people do the same with Greek and make it into some kind of magical language.

Well, the English says this, but if you study the original Greek, you'll see it. And they give it like four sentences of what the word means. Well, each word has one meaning in one context.

And that's very, very true. Unless it's a double entendre, intentionally. There's something called Janus parallelism, where you'll have a word in parallel in the Hebrew where it can have a double meaning, and that's intentional, right?

You know, a famous one, the Song of Solomon, the time of pruning of the vineyards is here, the time of singing of romance and love is here. And eit zamir, is it a time of pruning, is it a time of singing? You know, it's probably both. Both are intended. But otherwise, every word has one meaning in one context. So, sometimes people read too much into the text.

That's a common error. Or, you know, when people see Yeshua, salvation, it's like, ah, that's all over the Old Testament. Jesus is everywhere. Yeshua is the word for salvation.

It is not the name Yeshua, which occurs about 27 times in the Hebrew Bible. Even the spelling is different, okay? So, you know, people get all excited. And it's fun to get excited over things, but we can exaggerate stuff. As for perfect versus imperfect, it's more a matter of completed action versus incomplete action. Generally speaking, there is a lot of correspondence to past and future based on these verbal tenses.

But it is not as simple as it would be in English or in Greek where it's very, very specific. All right, we're going to stay on Twitter a little bit longer. Let's go to James. James asks this, Titus 2.13, can you please explain the Granville Sharp rule with this passage, and what is the view among scholars on how accurate it is within this passage? Great.

This is a really helpful time to use the NET. So, guys, let's pull this up. NET Bible to Titus 2.13. So, netbible.org, this is the English translation.

And here's the question. Does Titus 2.13 explicitly speak of this? Should it be translated as this? As we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God, and also we're waiting for our Savior Jesus Christ, or should it be understood, we are waiting for the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. That Jesus is described as our God and Savior. It's absolutely the right rendering.

It's absolutely the right rendering. But if you have the NET there, you click on number 20, and that brings you to this note, which I'm going to read to you. Okay, so this is from NET Bible.

Anyone can look this up. And it says this. The terms God and Savior both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ, clearly what the Greek is saying. This is one of the clearest statements in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp Rule, named after the English philanthropist linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction, article, noun, chi, noun.

So, when you have the construction, article, and then noun, and then chi, which is and, noun. And when two nouns are singular, personal, and common, that is not proper names, they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as the friend and brother, the God and Father, abound in the New Testament to prove Sharp's point. The only issue is whether terms such as God and Savior could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed, and then it gives a list of these people, they had their various arguments, and they say since both God and Savior were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence do fit Sharp's Rule.

Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp's Rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp's Rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. So, does it hold here? Absolutely. So, if I say this is my friend and brother, Scott, well, I'm speaking of the same person, right? This one and the same person. So, this is how the rule is applied. So, the legitimate, the right, the correct way to translate this is that we are waiting for the glorious appearing of our God and Savior, Jesus the Messiah. It is a clear statement of His deity. It speaks of Him both as God and Savior, and this grammatical rule absolutely holds.

So, maybe you understand the rule, maybe not, but just understand this is a right translation and an explicit statement of the deity of Jesus the Messiah. So, can we come back? I'm going to switch over to Facebook and answer some of the questions that were posted on Facebook as we dig into the Word today on the Line of Fire. 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. Thanks so much for joining us today on the Line of Fire. I normally take calls on this day on a wide range of subjects, but every so often I solicit questions in advance on social media, on Facebook and Twitter. So, that's what I've done. So, don't post anything now. Don't call. We've got all the questions.

In fact, I already had them by Wednesday morning, Wednesday afternoon. So, we're going to go over to Facebook where I ask for specific questions on Bible verses or on Hebrew and Greek questions. And we're going to start with Tony. How do you read the eye of Romans 7? I feel like if you have 10 commentaries on Romans, you have 10 opinions. Is it Paul and regenerate it? Paul regenerate it? Speech and character options like Israel or Adam? Carnal Christian? Any unbeliever?

None of these? Okay. So, Tony, in my book, Go and Sin No More, I wrote an appendix just focused on Romans 7. And I started off by saying, yeah, some of you skipped the whole book.

It went straight to the appendix. I saw you coming. And what I go through is the various views of how to read this, okay? And there was actually a division between Eastern church fathers and Western church fathers in terms of how they read the text. So, when Paul says the things I want to do, I don't do, the things I hate, I do, wretched man that I am who will deliver me from the body of this death. And then with the mind, I serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin, and I, it's in this wretchedness. Who is he talking about? Is he talking about himself before he was a believer? Is he talking about a believer who falls into legalism? Is he talking about Paul the apostle, the holy man of God, the one who used his own holiness as an example and read into the Thessalonians and said, you know the holy life I've lived before you, right? And the Paul who said, follow me as I follow Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11.1, or he said to the Philippians in Philippians 4.9, watch me, whatever you see in me, do it and you'll be blessed, was that same Paul talking about the wretched inner battle. Now, on the one hand, we find it comforting when we read that and say, yeah, sometimes the things I hate, I do, things I love, I don't do. But can I ask you a question? If you have a solid relationship with the Lord, is that your daily testimony that I do the things I hate and the things that I want to do I don't do?

It's not mine. How could it be? I mean, that would mean that every day we're robbing, we're stealing, we're committing adultery, we're hating, we're gossiping, we're, you know, that would, those are the things we hate. I mean, we're doing that, and we're not praying, and we're not loving our spouses, we're not loving our kids, we're not sharing the gospel, and we're not resisting sin, but because grace, that is how we're living most of the time. So here's what's undeniable, Romans 6 and Romans 8.

That's what's undeniable. Romans 7 cannot negate what's written in Romans 6 or Romans 8. Romans 6 emphatically tells us that sin will not have dominion over us because we're not under the law, we're under grace. And therefore we have been empowered to live holy lives. And that we should consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God, and now give the members of our body to bear fruit to holiness. And then Romans 8, telling us there's no condemnation to those who are in the sight of Jesus, then says that we walk by the Spirit, not by the flesh, and that we are debtors not to the flesh, but to the Spirit, and that we are overcomers, more than conquerors. So, Romans 7 cannot be denying that. My understanding of Romans 7 is that the eye there is Paul under the law, or a believer under the law. That he begins the chapter by saying the law, speaking of being dead to the law that we can now live to God, and that we keep the commandments by the Spirit. Then he says the law is holy and just and good, but I'm not. So to me, it's his past life, but told in the present as a believer who falls under legalism, and this is how you live under legalism. Because under legalism, it's constant, okay, I can't do this, I have to do this, I can't do this, if I do this, and you're constantly trying to tip the scales in the right direction, that is destructive and brings you into this place of bondage. But even if Paul is just saying life in the flesh, that the power of the flesh is such that it is hopeless in the natural, but I'm delivered from that by the power of the Spirit. So that's ultimately how I understand it.

It cannot be that this is my normal experience to say, yeah, I hate everything I do, I do the things I hate, the things I love, I don't, if that was the case, we'd be denying Jesus every day of our lives. All right, obviously, as you know, a massively important question. Okay, Brian, can you speak on Genesis 1, 1 through 9 and the difference between heaven, capital H, and heaven, small h? Where does the Bible say heaven is and where is heaven?

Thank you so much, God bless. So in the beginning, or by way of the beginning, or when God began to create the heavens and the earth, it's not talking about heaven where you go, okay? It's not talking about where God sits and throne. It's talking about the sky. It's talking about the earth and the sky, okay?

And it's a way of referring to the whole universe, because you look in the sky and it's all the stars out there and it's everything, right? So it's heaven in terms of everything that's out there that's not on the, so it's the earth and the rest of the universe. That's, everything out there is called heaven, all right? As to, quote, where heaven is, it's a spiritual location. In other words, it's not in the physical realm, it's in the spiritual realm. So it is viewed as being up. Jesus ascends to heaven, right? Acts 1, Ephesians 4, he ascends, he descended to earth, he ascends to heaven. So it is spatially as if it were up, but it is spiritual in terms of its, we can't see it. You can go through the universe and you'll never see it with your natural eye, because it's of another realm, it's spiritual. But when it's spoken of, you know, hell, Hades is spoken of as down, that's obviously, you know, you bury bodies in the ground as well.

And heaven's spoken of as up, but we have to remember that these are spiritual concepts more than physical concepts. Okay, Matthew, can you please help me understand the ancient Hebrew word haram? So the verb haram, the noun harem. Some have suggested that it means something like genocide, but I've also heard scholars like John Walton suggest it means something closer to bring them to their knees.

Thank you very much, Dr. Brown. John Walton, of course, is a brilliant Old Testament ancient Near Eastern scholar, one of the leading evangelicals in that field, and has done a lot of writing now with his son, John Harvey, as well. And I had John on the air to talk about this in his, one of his books in the Lost World series where he looks at the conquest of Canaan. Haram has nothing to do with genocide. That genocide is not a term that's used, it's not a verb for it to commit genocide in the Hebrew Bible. You know, you can talk about wiping out peoples and things like that, but you'd need more words to say that. But haram, I believe, rightly means to devote to destruction.

And the harem is the ban. It is devoting something to destruction. Now, it's possible that haram could be understood as devoting something to the Lord. In other words, you can't have this and it is devoted to him.

But it is not l'kaddesh, to sanctify or to make holy. It is to set apart for destruction. And in that case, for example, the idols, you come into the land of Canaan, destroy the idols, set them apart for destruction, or disobedient peoples in rebellion set apart to destruction.

Most scholars, most all scholars that I've studied and looked at would use that basic definition to put under the ban to set apart for destruction. When it comes to the Canaanites, they were to be driven out or killed. Many were driven out.

Many were not driven out and lived among the people. Others were killed. There is ancient Near Eastern language, which will talk about complete annihilation, and it's the way things are painted. You'll even have the Bible talk about completely annihilating a certain people, and then the next chapter talks about those that survived. So it would mean an utter destruction, but not necessarily killing every last one. But again, the word itself has nothing to do with the concept of genocide. But in my view, the best understanding is to set apart for destruction, to put under the ban, and therefore you can't have it.

You can't touch it. Like everything in Jericho was put under the harem, and because of that, Achan's sin was terrible in taking some of that which was devoted to destruction and taking it for himself. Okay, let's go to Aaron. Does Judges 18.30 refer to Manasseh or Moses? Does Judges 18.30 refer to Manasseh or Moses?

Okay, it's really interesting. The Hebrew says Manasseh, okay? You say, well, how do you get Moses from that? So Mosheh is Moses.

Manasseh is Manasseh, all right? So when you... there's just a difference of one consonant, the N in Hebrew, and different vowels, obviously. But in the Hebrew manuscripts that we have, the N, the N is suspended, which suggests that it was not originally there. So it's interesting, when you read it, it speaks of Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh. Well, we know that Moses had a son named Gershom, right? So is this referring to Moses, and that suspended N is telling you that that's not what the original text said? So it's interesting, you look at modern translations, NASB, Manasseh, ESV, Moses, there are going to be differences. The ancient versions, the Targum, the Septuagint, the Peshitta, they all read Manasseh. So the earliest traditions say Manasseh, and therefore it makes sense to stay with that, that that's what was there. The fact that you have the suspended N, indicates that there is a question about it. So, most likely it does say Manasseh, that is what's there, there is that slight question, could it mean, could it have originally embedded Moshe? Possibly, possibly. How the NUN crept in, how that happened, is a big question, Maury.

So it's safest to translate Manasseh as the ancient versions did, but perhaps it was Moses. Welcome, welcome to the Line of Fire, a special edition of our Q&A broadcast. Not taking calls today, not taking posts online.

I solicited these Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. And now I'm answering the questions that were posted on social media on Facebook and Twitter. Yet another reason to connect with us on social media. If you don't follow me on Facebook, it's AskDrBrown, A-S-K-D-R Brown on Facebook. And it's a great place to go because we're posting day and night edifying quotes, key news stories for prayer, and then my latest articles, videos, our live stream, we can watch the show every day. So on Facebook, we're AskDrBrown, A-S-K-D-R Brown.

The same on YouTube, by the way, those who want to subscribe to our YouTube channel. It's AskDrBrown, A-S-K-D-R Brown. Then on Twitter, it's Dr. Michael L. Brown.

Make sure you get the middle initial L in there, so there are two Ls. So, at DrMichaelLBrown on Twitter. And if you want to connect on Instagram, while we're giving that, just eliminate the middle initial L. Just Dr. Michael Brown works there. Okay, so we go back to questions that were posted on Facebook.

Then we're going to head over to Twitter. Luanne, I took an online course from Hillsdale College that said it used the Hebrew Bible, which read 2 Samuel 13, 8 with heart-shaped dumplings. Haven't been able to find this translation.

Do you know where it comes from? Is it a valid translation? So, if I were looking up this question, right, so I would go to BibleGateway.com, then I would type in 2 Samuel 13, 8, whatever verse you want to use. Then I would click under the verse 2 Samuel 13, 8 in all English translations. Now, this doesn't list every English translation that's ever been done, and some of the Jewish ones it doesn't have permission to use, but many, many other translations it does. So, I'd go through all things, and I'd look and see, okay, it says made cakes, made flatbread, made cakes, made... So, you're going through it and trying to find, okay, where is this? So, when they said the Hebrew Bible, maybe, maybe they meant if you're translating directly from the Hebrew, you'd say this, it's reading much more into the text, okay?

If you look at the most important translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that's been done, called the Tanakh, but the Jewish Publication Society came out in the 80s. Let's just see. Sorry, typed in the wrong verse there.

You know, you think, okay, maybe they were using that. I typed in the wrong verse twice. Sorry about that, everybody. We'll get it right here.

Here we go. It just says she took dough and kneaded it into cakes. Some have argued that the cakes were actually dumplings. Some have argued that the Hebrew suggests they were heart-shaped. So, this is kind of, they were trying to explain what the Hebrew is referring to and perhaps read a little too much into the text, but I don't know of any translation that said heart-shaped dumplings. I haven't checked every translation that's available, Jewish translations and things like that, but not aware of where that would come from in an actual translation. In my view, they were saying, what I'm guessing, is that they were saying that if you study it in Hebrew, you'll see it means this.

Okay, let's see. Anna, when I read Revelation 21, 1-5 in context, I see that this is the time frame when he shall wipe away every tear, wipe out death, and no more crying or pain will exist. This is after the great white throne judgment. This is contrary to the teaching belief that is in the church today that when a Christian passes away, they are automatically in the state of no more tears, pain, etc. So, I'm incorrect in believing that this is clearly not the case based on these verses in Revelation 21 and other verses, such as Revelation 6, 10. Yes and no. On the one hand, you're right in saying that we can't assume that believers who have died and are in the presence of God right now only have joy.

Right? Because Revelation 6 does speak of the martyrs, those who were beheaded, those who were killed for their faith, and they're saying, how long, O Lord, before you revenge us? Now, again, it's the book of Revelation, it's apocalyptic, it's visionary, but if that does give us a glimpse into the spiritual world, and there are believers so spiritually, awaiting the physical resurrection, but spiritually present in God's kingdom and by his throne, they're still feeling the weight and the pain. So, could it be that believers in heaven now are not pain-free, that they still have a burden for what's happening on earth, that they long for certain things to take place?

Is that possible? Well, based on Revelation 6, it's possible, right? However, however, Paul speaks of departing and being with Jesus, which is far better. Jesus refers to being in paradise with him. Paul also writes about being absent from the body as present with the Lord. And in his presence, Psalm 16 tells us, this fullness of joy. So, certainly, there is rejoicing in the presence of God. Look at the description in Hebrews 12. In Hebrews 12, it speaks of a multitude of righteous made perfect, the spirits of righteous men made perfect.

It's a joyful assembly there as well. So, I would hate to think that you go from pain and suffering in this world to pain and suffering in God's presence. So, there's certainly eternal joy in his presence and fellowship with him beyond anything we could ever dream of. But with that, there might be shared burdens that are still carried until that final day. The other thing with Revelation 21, it could be when we stand before God for final accounting that there's some tears, right? That could happen. Or it could be that there's still tears being shed on earth, and with the final destruction of the wicked, no more of that. And that could be referred to as well, and no more pain.

Alright, let's go to May. In Matthew 8 and Luke 8, it must be Mark 5. When the pigs ran down the steep cliff and drowned in the lake, what happened to the demons? Did they die also? Did they come out of the pigs and search for another body to enter? I know that the Bible doesn't say, but in all your studying of Scripture, what do you think happened to those demons?

They went out of the body of the pigs to look for another place to live. Jesus was driving them out, and they begged him, don't drive us into the pit. So it wasn't a matter of dying, but of being sentenced to this pit, a horrific place to be, where they would have no outlet, and they would be tormented by their own desires, etc. A place of separation and judgment, waiting for the final judgment.

Remember, Jesus speaks of hell being prepared for the devil and his angels in Matthew 25, and even if the demons are a different class, they would fit in there with the devil and his angels, right? So that was where he was going to send them, and they begged him not to, and he agreed when he said, send us into the pigs. So obviously the pigs were right there, and there were so many of them, it was an easy thing for them to go in and have it. Why did Jesus agree to do it?

In my view, two reasons. One, it wasn't time for the final judgment, but perhaps more simply, he wanted to demonstrate how many demons were in this man, and how destructive they were. Because the pigs not having the willpower that a human being would have, or the moral character that a human being would have, are just going to instantly yield to the power of these demons, who then, you see how destructive the demons are, how many there were, and how destructive they were. So everything I understand, they now self-destruct, right? They've got nowhere to go now, right? So they go in the pigs, pigs drown, now the demons have to go look for another place to live. That's how I would understand it.

Alright, let's go to Andrew. Do you consider the war scrolls found in the Qumran caves to be consistent with biblical prophecy, or carry any prophetic authority? No, I don't believe that they carry any prophetic authority. They were scrolls written by an ancient Jewish sect, most likely Essenes. They believed that they were living in the end of days.

They believed in the conflict between good and evil. They had their leader, the teacher of righteousness, which some would liken to a messianic figure. There are many parallels in the Dead Sea Scrolls with New Testament concepts, in terms of them thinking of themselves as a new covenant community, in terms of messianic beliefs and things like that, that there would certainly be parallels on some levels, or messianic imminence, or reference a priestly messiah as well as a national messiah, the messiahs of Aaron and Israel. Those would play into a concept of a priestly messiah along with a royal messiah.

But no, I don't believe that they are themselves prophetic, or that they have content about the future, or that we can learn about the end of the age by studying them. No, I don't believe that. And, John 14.1 has the plural yor and a singular heart. Does this indicate that the heart is corporate as in the body of Christ?

No, no. Not necessarily at all. That you could, just like if I'm speaking in English to a bunch of people, when I say, hey, God cares about all of you. God cares about the condition of your heart. I just said all of you. I'm talking in the plural. But I could say, equally well, God cares about the condition of your hearts, or the condition of your heart. So there's a way to use the word in the singular, but you mean it in a plural way, right? So you're using it in the singular, but in a plural way. So, no, I don't believe it is just the heart of the body of Christ generically, but each of our hearts would be singular. Now, that being said, I just, I've not thought of that in the Greek before, so let's just take a look at John 14.1 in Greek and make sure, right? So, ESP translate was, let not your hearts be troubled, right? So it is the second plural, you, your, you people, right? But, yeah, it's simply, you could do it in Hebrew, you could do it in Greek, you could do it in English. It's very simple in that regard. All of you, God wants you to have peace of mind.

All of you, God wants your heart to be steady. Right, so I'm speaking to everybody, but individually. Having said that, since I've just got 45 seconds, I'm not going to go to another question. I'm going to go back over to Twitter in a moment, answer some more questions there. I hope you enjoy the broadcast.

If so, share it with a friend. We are here to serve you. We're here to strengthen you, build you up, help you to be spiritually healthy and thrive so that you can fulfill God's purpose for your life. And you can be a blessing, you can spread the good news, and you can be an agent of change.

Friends, it's that simple. God changes us and the change in us brings about a change in others. That's how we see a gospel-based moral and cultural and spiritual revolution.

Jesus radically touches us and that touch from us becomes contagious as we reach out and love and speak truth to the world around us. We'll be right back. Hey, I am enjoying this broadcast. I hope you are as well responding to questions that were posted on Twitter and Facebook.

Getting to as many as I can, but with thorough answers. So we're going back to Twitter. This is a question from Yishai and it's about Galatians 3.16 where Paul is referring to God's promises to Abraham's seed and he says, notice he said seed, not seeds. Right? So Yishai asks, if Paul, a classically trained Pharisee, understood zera to mean seed, singular, when it comes to the promises made to Abraham and his seed, then why does modern scholarship almost unanimously disagree with him when it comes to rendering the word in Genesis? Great question. I love it.

I have a major scholarly article that will be coming out in a major book about the restoration of Israel and God's promises to Israel and debunking replacement theology. Paul, like any Jew of his day, or like any Greek of his day, or like any English speaker today, and I'm going to prove it in a minute, knew that it's a compound plural. He knew it.

Everybody knew it. Just go to the end of Galatians 3. If you are Abraham's, right, if you belong to Abraham, if you belong to Christ, excuse me, then you are Abraham's seed. Plural. Corporate plural.

Yeah, yeah. Paul knew it in Romans 15. He talks about the seed of Abraham. It's plural.

Everybody knows it. Here, use the word offspring instead. If Paul said that, as some modern translations say, now notice he didn't say offsprings, but offspring, there's no such word. We don't use the word in common English, offsprings.

All your offspring. It is a compound plural. So it is a singular word. The Hebrew zara, the Greek sperma, the only time you would use zara for plural seeds would be seeds in the ground, like the Talmudic tractate zaraim, seeds in the ground. The only time the Hebrew Bible would ever use the word zara, meaning seeds in the plural, is if you're planting a bunch of seeds in the ground. When it came to zara, offspring, if you had one kid, then that's your zara. That's your seed. That's your offspring. But if you had kids, grandkids, many kids, that's your zara.

That's your offspring. Paul knew it. The Galatians knew it. Anyone who could read the language knew it.

All right? Paul fully understood that. But he is making a homiletical point on what would be a hyper-literal reading that rabbinic Judaism could do. And the Galatians, having come under certain Jewish influence, may have been familiar with it. He was refuting this idea that they had to be circumcised and follow the Torah in order to be justified. And he's telling them that what matters is the preeminent seed, the one seed that is the Messiah through whom all the blessings come.

That's his point. But as to the promises, all right, you know, I'm just looking at a comment by John, Genesis 28, 3, 35, 11, 48, 4, that show that from its inception that true Israel was the church. No, no, no, no, no, no!

With all sincerity, sir, no! True Israel is not some unique concept in the Hebrew Bible. When God gave promises to Abraham's seed over and over and over, it's plural, it's plural, your seed, they will serve. It's hundreds of examples of plural in terms of the promises to the children of Israel as children of Israel. There was not a concept that, when it uses kahal, it's not the nation as a whole.

John, study it, look it up, it's the nation as a whole, over and over and over and over and over. It's a gross misunderstanding of Paul's argument. He's simply saying you do not need to be part of the physical descendants to be right with God. And in fact, if you belong to Jesus, the Messiah, then you are spiritually part of Abraham's seed, which is plural.

Everybody knows it, everybody knows it. Use the word offspring, replace it with offspring, and you see the argument he's making. And again, the point is that when God says, I'm going to bless the whole world through your seed, ultimately it is the one seed, the preeminent seed, the Messiah through whom all the blessing comes to the world, right?

That's the point. But read over and over and over. I'll just give you one example of many, many, many, many, many. And I get into all of them in my article.

When the volume's going to be published, I'll tell you more about it. But Genesis 15, okay? So God says to Abram there, Genesis 15, he says this. He said to Abram, know well that your zara, your seed, your offspring, shall be strangers, right, plural, in the land not theirs, and they, plural, shall be enslaved and oppressed 400 years. But I will execute judgment on the nation. They shall serve, and in the end, they shall go free with great wealth. The children of Israel, Abraham's zara, Abraham's seed.

So that is your answer. All right, let's go to Troy, Matthew 16, 19. Catholics read a lot in this verse, but what is your interpretation on exactly what is binding and loosing, what binding and loosing includes, and how exactly should we take the keys of the kingdom?

So there is a lot of discussion and debate over this. The binding and loosing in context, and then if you read again in Matthew 18, it seems to be with pronouncements that are made by the believing leadership in terms of what is prohibited and what is not. That, for example, Acts 15 would be the classic passage on this, that the Gentile believers are not bound by keeping all the laws of Moses. Rather, they do this, this, this.

This is what they are required to do and expected to do. It doesn't seem to be primarily talking about binding demons, loosing angels, you know, some spiritual warfare proponents would teach it, but rather pronouncements that are made, it could hold true for someone that this person is now excommunicated because of walking in persistent sin without repenting. And that's a pronouncement that's made, and God will back that when it's in harmony with his will, and now when that person is forgiven and loosed from their sins, they are forgiven. Keys of the kingdom can be interpreted various ways. There is imagery and language that goes back to Isaiah, the 22nd chapter, which is interesting with judgment on Shevna, the scribe, and then Eliakim being raised up. It's a very interesting passage, and that's where some of the imagery goes back to. When I get that far in Isaiah, I'm going to dig deeper to see if there's more insight I can glean.

But the keys of the kingdom, the very pronouncement of the gospel, the very revelation of Jesus the Messiah, this message that we bring to the whole world that opens up eternal life to them, these would be some of the most fundamental keys of the kingdom, and not something mystic, and not having to do uniquely with church authority as has been taught by Catholicism over the years. All right, Nathan, in Isaiah 53, 10, it says that the Lord was pleased to crush him, speaking of the Messiah. Why does it use the word pleased? It seems odd to think that God would get pleasure from crushing his son. Right, it's a great question.

Every question I've answered so far today, they've been great questions, so I really do appreciate them. So the Hebrew word that's used here, by the name of Chafetz Daco, Chafetz can mean to take pleasure in. It can also mean simply to desire, all right, to choose to do something. So the new JPS translation renders with, but the Lord chose to crush him by disease. If you look at other translations, you'll understand that it does not, the word can be used for pleasure, or for taking pleasure in, but again, if I was reading it, my first impulse, I didn't know anything, I would think that he chose to do it, that this was the expression of what he desired.

Why? Because he was going to die for our sins, and that, of course, would make perfect sense to you. So King James, New King James, it pleased the Lord. NASB pleased the Lord. ESV, it was the will of the Lord. CSP, the Lord was pleased to crush him.

So pleased meaning he was willing to do it. NIV, it was the Lord's will. NET, though the Lord desired to crush him. RSV, it was the will of the Lord.

NRSV is the will of the Lord, et cetera. So the better way to translate is rather than he was pleased, he desired to do it. He chose to do it, because in doing so, it would bring us salvation, it would bring us healing, it would bring us redemption. And again, as a follower of Jesus, I'm sure you would agree that it was, right? John 3.16, God sent his son, gave his son, so he gave him to die, right? So I would not translate with pleased, I would translate with chose, desired, it was his will. All right, got time for one more question.

From, well, Alpaca, it's part of the name. That's the screenshot. What is your interpretation of Romans 10.9? Must one confess with their mouth to Jesus as Lord to be saved? Some say this is not true, it's just in the context of the persecution of those times.

And there's a video link. I believe that it means what it says universally, that part of our salvation is a confession. Now, if you get saved alone in your house and there's nobody there, if you're mute, you're unable to speak, if you write it rather than say it, that's not the issue. It is the recognition, the affirmation that Jesus is Lord. In other words, I am now submitting my life to God. I am now living in obedience to God. I am now turning from my old life and saying, God, you are my Lord and I commit to follow you.

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus or Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you'll be saved. So there is that at some point, this public statement, right, this public acknowledgement, this saying before God and as opportunity arises in what about this before man, before people, Jesus is Lord. It's not just a theological statement. It's a statement of he's the boss, the king, the master, the one I bow down to and live for and I believe he died for my sins and rose from the dead. So in short, no reason not to believe. It's part of fundamental salvation for everyone, is it not? And with that, I declare once again, Jesus is Lord. Be blessed.