Dr. Brown Answers Your Toughest Questions

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. Let's do it. You've got questions. We've got answers.

Phone lines are open. 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. Well, thanks for joining us, friends. Phone lines are wide open, 866-34-TRUTH, 866-34-87-884. And a quick reminder before I go to the phones, if you don't get my emails, I really encourage you to connect with us, even if you're already connected on social media, on Facebook or YouTube or Instagram or Twitter, because you just, you never know when those things might shut down or block things that we're doing.

Plus, we send out email communications with links and all kinds of other things that we don't necessarily post online. So take a minute, go to askdrbrown.org, askdrbrown.org. Sign up for our emails. We'll send you immediately a really neat, free mini ebook, lots of fascinating insights about the Messiah and Jewish tradition. Share more about my own background from LSD to PhD, the three Rs that our ministry emphasizes, Revival in the Church, Moral and Cultural Revolution in Society, and Redemption in Israel.

So check that out. And right now to the phones, 866-34-TRUTH. And we start with Caleb in Centerville, Ohio. Welcome to The Line of Fire. Hey, Dr. Brown. It's a pleasure speaking with you. So recently I came across a blog post not too long ago. And it was a guy that probably carries a little bit more of a hyper-legalistic view of Christianity, kind of would claim that most evangelists are heretics and no one's really right and all doctrine that people kind of carry is false. And one of the points that he brought up that I think was a little bit interesting was his view on biblical modesty coming from the verse in 1 Timothy 9, which I never knew until kind of doing research that the argument of whether or not women should wear dresses and head coverings was a little more prevalent than I thought. And I was wondering with you being versed in the Greek language, that word katastole that translates to apparel in our English language, that's kind of a verse that tends to be used to kind of express the opinion that women should wear dresses because of the meanings of the two kind of combined words.

And so I was just wondering what your opinion was on that word if you're aware of this kind of... Yeah, so let me comment more broadly. So 1 Timothy 2 verse 9, I also want the women to dress modestly with decency and propriety, adorning themselves not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds appropriate for women who profess to worship God. The first thing is, some would emphasize that it's not just a matter of modesty, but also of class divisions of women flaunting their riches and making poorer women feel second class. So it's modesty and it's flaunting wealth.

But let's just even put aside the flaunting wealth argument that some would raise, you know, in other words, culturally, that that was the issue. Let's say I didn't know anything about this. Let's say I couldn't read Greek. I'm far more expert in Hebrew than Greek, but obviously do Greek research. So let's say I had no capacity to do that, you know, the research. So I'd go to Bible Gateway.

So anybody can do this, okay? Go to BibleGateway.com and then I type in 1 Timothy 2, 9 with any particular version, doesn't matter. And then at the bottom, after it would come up, I would see 1 Timothy 2, 9 in all English translations. So this is all the English translations that they carry, which is many, okay? And you can look at translation after translation after translation, be it, you know, from King James, right, to ASV, to Amplified, to CSB, to CJB, to CEV, one after another after another. And this will give you an idea as you go through this. For example, the complete Jewish Bible, CJB, likewise the women when they pray should be dressed modestly and sensibly in respectable attire, not with elaborate hairstyles and gold jewelry or pearls or expensive clothes.

Go through translation after translation. You will see that pretty much they're saying the same two things. There is to be modesty in terms of covering and things like that, and there is to be modesty in terms of not flaunting wealth. Is there anything that would say that a woman shouldn't wear pants but she wear a dress?

No, not in this context. The Greek would not indicate that. And remember, depending where you were in the ancient world, you could have men who wear outfits that look more like a dress than pants. One of my colleagues decades ago when he was new in ministry went to India to preach and got to a village and to his shock the women were wearing pants and the men were wearing like these dresses. So he preached out of Deuteronomy 22 with passion that a man should not wear women's clothes and a woman should not wear men's clothes without realizing that in their eyes he was the one wearing women's clothes. In other words, it was a cultural issue. The idea of dresses versus pants wasn't even an issue that existed in the ancient world the way it does today. So no, that is certainly not what the text is saying. We do want to encourage modesty.

There are other passages that point in that direction. No one should dress in such a way as to be a sexual stumbling block. In other words, you wear certain outfits so as to get people to look at you lustfully. That should never happen. We should conduct ourselves with modesty. And even if you're wealthy, this is nothing that is flaunted for various reasons. But the idea that it's a certain thing, you can't wear a dress, a woman has to wear a dress, it's just not what the text is saying. And if someone's saying, well, if you really dig deeper in the Greek, no, they're digging beyond what the Greek would indicate. So Caleb, thank you for the question.

And again, don't know the blog or the person, but it seems that your take on it is correct, that it's hyper-legalistic. Hey, thanks for asking. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go to Anthony in New York City. Welcome to the line of fire. Hi, Dr. Brown. Thank you for taking my call.

You're welcome. So my question is regarding Matthew starting chapter 15, starting verse 1, about how the Pharisees accused Jesus of their disciples breaking the tradition of not washing their hands. And then Jesus accused them of breaking the commandment of honoring your mother and your father, because I'm a little confused, because he says that they say, anyone that says to his mother or his father, it's my offering to God, all that that I can help you with, it's breaking the commandment. Does that work towards us? If I want to give an offering to God of, say, $200, and it's my offering to God, and my mother comes to me or a family member or a father and says, hey, listen, I need help paying this, paying that, and if I say to my father or to my mother, hey, this is my offering to God, I'm also breaking the commandment of honoring my mother and my father, I'm a little confused.

Yeah, thank you for asking, and it's a valid question. Let's say that it was universally understood in that Jewish context that the tithe belonged to God, right? So let's say that you start there, that that was a given, that was understood, that that's not mine, that the firstfruits, the tithe, that belongs to the Lord.

Okay, so put that aside. Let's just say that you've got $10,000 in the bank, right, and your parents come to you and they say, hey, we're, our social security is not enough, you know, you know them, they're hard working, they're, now they're retired, they've come down sick, they need your help, right? And this is money to spend, it's your money, it's discriminatory, it's not the tithe, it's not given over to the Lord, but you say, no, listen, I feel I should give that money to the Lord's work instead. Then you would be breaking a commandment in the name of honoring the Lord. Remember what Paul writes in 1 Timothy 5, that if a man doesn't care for his own family, then he's worse than an unbeliever. So it is a false spirituality. It's not a matter of your parents are trying to be greedy and take advantage of you, it's, it's, that's not the issue, it's an issue of using a spiritual loophole of saying, well, no, this is dedicated to God, or no, I'm going to pledge this to God in the future.

The whole thing is, it's playing a legal game. It's not like you say, oh boy, mom, dad, I really felt the Lord told me to give that money last night. All right, let me pray, because if he told me that, then he's, he's going to supply and I can give you everything you need, you know, that's, that's a totally different thing.

It's, it's fine. It's using a tradition to find a spiritual loophole. So that's the letter of it as I explained it, but focus on the spirit of it. When I, let's, let's say I'm invited over to have a meal with neighbors and I really don't like these people, but I know God's calling me to, to, to walk in love, et cetera, and say, well, no, I'm fat, Lord called me to fast, so I'm sorry, I'm not going to be able to go. So we find an excuse that sounds spiritual, spiritual in order to disobey, love your neighbor as yourself, or in this case to disobey, honor your parents. So it's the spirit of it that he's after, how we can find these, these backdoor ways and be super spiritual, all while abusing fundamental commandments of God. That's the thing to, to focus on and emphasize as opposed to a legitimate thing of why really I pledge that money to help this mission's situation. Now you need it. Let's go to the Lord together. You know, let, let me ask him because I, I don't, I don't want to break a vow that I gave to, you know, promise to God, but you have this immediate need. That's, that's an issue to think through. Very different than what he's talking about there. Hey, thank you for the call.

866-344-TRUTH. And you know, sometimes we can really struggle with exactly what is being said and that's good. Dig, dig, try to understand, but always step back and try to get this spirit of what was being said. And again, it's, it's legal loopholes.

It is a superficial spirituality that puts more emphasis on the outward appearance than on the condition of the heart or more emphasis on honoring this one tiny, tiny little thing. You know, I'll give you a horrific, vulgar, despicable example, but it's been reported for many years in Iran that because you, you cannot execute a virgin, that they would have one of their high up clerics basically rape the woman. So she's no longer a virgin. Now they can honor the law.

I mean, if true, that's an extreme horrific, ugly example. Hey, we actually have one phone line open 866-348-7884. So we'll be right back on the other side of the break. Let's see, looking at the questions here. We got Bible, we got politics, we got prophecy and more.

All right, we'll take it all off when we come back. 866-344-TRUTH. You've got questions. We've got answers. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice of moral, cultural and spiritual revolution. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us on the broadcast. We've got questions. We've got answers 866-344-TRUTH.

Let's go to Joseph in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Welcome to The Line of Fire. Good afternoon, Dr. Brown.

Good afternoon. So my question is, and I'm just going to kind of lay a little bit of a foundational before I get to my question, and that basically is, there are variances between the Mesoretic text and the Greek Septuagint. And with the New Testament, there's a lot of quotes from the Septuagint, and there are variances like, the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.

Well, when you read the Mesoretic text, it could sometimes say capstone. Also in Psalm 22, where it says, they pierced my hands and my feet, the Hebrew text will reference a lion instead. And so my question is regarding, particularly with Genesis 4, chapter 4, verse 24, and how it's mentioned by Jesus again in Matthew, chapter 18, verse 22. So, depending on where it's quoted from, it varies. If it's quoted from the Hebrew, Lamech says he'll be avenged 77 times, while the Greek Septuagint says 70 times 7. And depending on what translation you read, Jesus will either quote 70 times 7 or 77 times. Do you have any thoughts as to which one is the correct translation, and just kind of what the kind of what I mentioned before about the variances between the Mesoretic text and the Greek Septuagint, what are your thoughts about that and how it pertains to the Gospels and the Bible as a whole?

Yeah, a great question. So the first thing is that in the text we're talking about Genesis 4, 24, and Lamech will be avenged 77 times, right, versus 70 times 7. Even though Matthew 18, 22 is a similar sounding thing, it's certainly not a quotation.

And the one is about vengeance, the other is about forgiveness, right? So that's interesting, but that certainly is not pointing at the fact that he is quoting Septuagint there. And remember, he wouldn't have been teaching originally in Greek, he would have been teaching originally in Aramaic or possibly in Hebrew.

So that raises yet another question. And even the issue of Mesoretic text and Psalm 22, the earliest manuscripts we have, Dead Sea Scrolls, which would indicate more that they dug through or hence Septuagint, they pierced. And then there are some Mesoretic manuscripts, because it's not one text, it's a textual tradition with thousands of manuscripts.

There are some Mesoretic manuscripts that also read, they pierced or they dug through. So that's more of an internal Hebrew transmission question. But other times, there's no question that there's a difference between the Hebrew and the Greek. We assume that the Hebrew is the original and the more accurate, unless we have other confirmation of the Greek reading. In other words, we may have a text where the Hebrew talks about three cows and the Septuagint talks about a three-year-old cow, or reverse it.

One talks about a three-year-old cow and the other talks about three cows. And then we find confirmation for the Septuagint or reading in manuscripts from Dead Sea Scrolls and the Peshitta, you know, the ancient Aramaic translation, etc. And then in context, it makes much more sense. But otherwise, we understand that the Greek is a translation of the Hebrew. So all translators of the Hebrew Bible start with the Hebrew and use the Septuagint in a secondary way. So why did the New Testament authors often quote the Septuagint? Because that was the Greek Bible of the day. Just like I'll quote whatever English translation I'm using, sometimes I'll make my own translation. But most of the time, if I'm writing a book, I'm just using a translation. So if it was 50 years ago, and I was writing a book in English, and I was quoting the Bible, I'd be quoting from the King James, because that was the primary Bible that was used in the believing Christian world in America.

So it's simply that. They were quoting the Bible of the day. Here and there, they would vary from it. We have instances of Matthew varying from it. We have instances of Paul varying from it, whether translating directly from the Hebrew or making a correction. But otherwise, they were just using the Bible of the day. It also tells us that while every word and every letter is important, often it's the spirit of the text and the spirit of the message that's being conveyed. Hence, if the Septuagint is conveying the same overall message or a particular nuance of the truth of that message, the New Testament authors, by inspiration of the spirit, would have no problem using that as well.

Well, that definitely answers overall what it means. Now, I have actually looked at different manuscripts, and I've seen lectures about different comparisons with manuscripts, and there are some interesting findings. Like, one that really stands out to me is the genealogy of Miriam and Matthew. It has three sets of 14 generations, and commonly it's translated that Joseph is the husband of Mary. But I've counted the sets of 14, and usually if you stop at Joseph, the last set of 14 generations stops at 13. Yeah, yeah, no, it's universally understood by commentators that Matthew is basically counting double on the last one just to have that division of 14, 14, 14, and some would argue that it's because 14 numerically represents David, and there's debate on that. But there's no different Greek manuscript evidence to change that. There's an alleged reading from the Syriac that makes Joseph the father of Miriam as opposed to the husband of, but it really, it's a stretch there to try to argue that.

But yeah, these are all things, Joseph, in any serious Bible commentary, you'll find a lot of explanation detail, but a simple, a simple thing to do, because obviously you like to dig and study, sir, is go to netbible.org, netbible, netbible.org, and then whatever verse you're looking at, you'll see translation notes, you'll see explanations as to why they render things the way they did, well over 60,000 notes there. Even as I'm writing a commentary and doing serious work, I'll often look there to see why they rendered the way they did in background because it's really well done, even when I disagree, they present good evidence. Hey Joseph, thank you for the call, I'm sure we'll, hopefully, we'll talk again. 866-34-TRUTH.

We go to David in Newton, Massachusetts. Welcome to the line of fire. Thank you, Dr. Brown. It is a pleasure speaking with you. I'm a 65-year-old gentleman who grew up Catholic, kind of found my way in other kinds of spiritual, you know, kind of finding myself, but most recently I would say with Trump becoming president back in 16, I found myself so tired of the news that I just decided to read the Bible for the first time in my life. Wow. I'm going to tell you, I'm now my third time in.

Come on. Yes, and all I can tell you is what a good use of my time, and listening to you, listening to people like Tim Mackey who is the founder of the Bible Project. I found myself also listening to David Pawson who passed away last year. Yes, yes, great Bible teacher. Really great Bible teacher, and also Ravi Zacharias, who unfortunately, when he passed away, was vilified due to his personal failures that was surfaced after his death.

Yeah, even in that case, tragically of course, and tragic most of all for those that he hurt directly, but of course the truth of what he said remains true, you know, that doesn't change. Hey, before you get to your point, how has stepping away from the news and reading the Bible through now on your third time through in a four or five year period, how has that impacted you personally? Oh, it's tremendous. It just is, it is actually, it is giving me a kind of peace that I just didn't think that existed in some way, and I don't mean to be overdramatic about that, but I will tell you that I don't worry about things. The only thing I would say that I have asked for personal forgiveness, which I desperately needed, is I knew that, and I felt really comforted in that. What I found interesting is my relationship with my family, my wife, my four kids, my three kids, and how they've now looked at me through different lens, because that was just not the way I was, and I try not to push my new thinking on anybody, but just by hopefully in some way, shape, or form, by having it change me in some ways, hopefully will bring interest to others.

I find that I'm much more patient and much more soul thoughtful, I guess, you know, thinking about how my actions and my words reflect on other people, and whether it's positive or whether it's negative, how can I be a better person? I find it to be, and by the way, here's the other point about that. I'm so curious about learning more. It's only like, it's so deep, I just want to go deeper, and I'll go at my own pace. I'm not trying to follow anybody else, but I just love it. And by the way, I was attracted to you in large measure because you're Jewish, and I was so, I have so many great Jewish friends.

I'm so curious as to why they don't believe in Jesus because, and when I bring it up, by the way, a lot of people don't want to talk about it, and so I respect that, and I don't want to push myself on them, but I also find myself personally curious about other people's perspective about the Bible and about Jesus specifically. Wow, all right, stay right there. What an amazing testimony. We'll get your question on the other side of the break.

What a great testimony, and what a great reminder to us, the Word, the treasures, life-changing, all waiting for us, calling to us the Word of God. There we go. We've got that rare phone line open, 866-34-TRUTH. You've got questions. We've got answers.

Any subject that relates in any way, even remotely, to the Line of Fire broadcast. Glad to take your calls. All right, with that, we go back to David in Newton, transformed by reading the Word these last few years. Hey, I'm assuming you don't have any of my books on answering Jewish objections to Jesus, right?

I do not, no. Okay, when we're done, I'm going to put you back on hold, and we're going to get your name and address to send you a book as a gift. I don't want to take you away from reading the Bible.

When you have some time to look at some other things, it'll give you an idea of why Jews don't believe in Jesus, the most fundamental reasons, and then how we respond to those. But anyway, the question you wanted to ask, go ahead. I appreciate that, I'd love to read that. So really, the reason I ended up really just diving into the Bible one is I wanted to read it, and I can't believe that, honestly, that I'd have a perspective about a book, and I had had a perspective that was never formed of my actual understanding of it, so I'm totally interested. But my specific question here is political in a way, because I know you, Dr. Brown, based on listening to you and what you've actually said, and the vast majority of your listeners are Trump supporters.

I am not. But that said, I'm trying to treat it properly and not just go out on a limb, but I saw again yesterday, as everybody else did, that Trump, his organ, no, the Trump Organization and his CFO, Alan Weisenberg, was indicted for what appears to be detailed evidence of tax fraud. And I just have this gnawing feeling like, how do you, Dr. Brown, knowing how spiritual you are and how truth matters, how do you balance that support? Because I understand in some ways that he has, he represented policies that were more consistent with how you and a lot of your listeners want to see government work. At the same time, he's such a flawed person.

He's so in many different ways. I just, I'm struggling with that. I'd love to hear your answer.

Yeah, sure. And it's a great question to ask. With regard to the recent investigation, I have no clue what to make of it. In other words, there are allegations. I have no clue what to make of it. It seems odd that multiplied millions of dollars have been spent to investigate alleged tax fraud like a million point seven.

That seems odd, but I have no idea what to make of it. And I never assumed that Trump was some super honest businessman or anything like that, any more than I assume that most politicians are without some type of corruption. But what it came down to for me was really simple. And let's look at it like this. If one candidate is going to aggressively push pro-abortion legislation and judges across the country, and that's potentially going to result in the more shedding of innocent blood, another candidate whose flaws are very evident, who treats people like dirt and is nasty and lies and all of this, this candidate is potentially going to save millions of babies.

Or if one candidate is likely to wink at abuses in communist China and another candidate is willing to stand up to communist China, or if one candidate is going to actively work against our religious liberties and affect the world that my grandkids or their kids grow up in, and another candidate is going to stand strong for our religious liberties in a way that can have a generational impact, that when it comes to existential things like that, the candidate that I'm going to vote for is the one who's strong on those other policies. Just here, look at it like this. We'll boil it down, make it really, really simple. There is an epidemic in your community where these dogs with rabies, you live in a small community, have gotten free and they're terrorized in the community. They've bitten a number of children.

Some of the children have died. Others have to get terribly painful rabies shots. And you don't even have a dog catcher in your community. So you have two choices. One is the sweetest guy in the world, happily married, everybody speaks well of him, never gets drunk, never hear a profane word out of his mouth, but he couldn't catch a dog if he gave him a nuclear bomb. The other guy's nasty, mean-spirited, divorced three times, his family won't even talk to him, but he'll catch a dog with his bare hands and within a week there won't be a dog on the streets.

Who do you vote for as the dog catcher? Unfortunately, the second guy. So that's what it came down to for me. However, the debate is, was it worth it? In other words, the fair debate was with the amount of collateral damage that he brought with him and the amount of reproach that came to the gospel because of our association with him, was it worth it? That's the fair debate.

But to debate whether I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or Joe Biden or Donald Trump, to me, it became clear I was voting against the others even when I was voting for Trump. Yeah, I get it. I understand. And by the way, I find this to be so interesting, yet at the same time, it pales in comparison to Jesus. That's what's happened now that you've withdrawn from bombardment of news and social media and all that and spent a lot of time with God.

Whole perspective changes. Let me also say that from the start, I gave warnings. I was concerned. Even as a Trump voter, I said, here are the concerns and we better pray this way. Otherwise, these are going to be the results.

It's going to be bad. So I was aware of that all the time and sought to call a spade a spade in the midst of things. Hey, David, thank you for the call. Stay right there. Grayson is going to get your info so we can send you Answering Jewish Rejections to Jesus, Volume 1.

All right, let's go over to High Point, North Carolina, Orlando. You've got to turn down. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Can you hear me?

Just a little. Are you talking into your phone? I'm talking into my phone. Okay, go ahead. Can you hear me?

Can you hear me? Yeah, tell you what, stay there because it's really breaking up and as soon as Grayson is free. So guys, let Grayson know. We'll go back to you and find out what's going on because we're getting a lot of feedback.

It's going to be very difficult for people here. So we'll get back to you. Okay, stay right there. Let's go over to... I was going to go to Puerto Rico. Guess we're not going to Puerto Rico now. All right, we go to Bill in Fort Mill, South Carolina. Welcome to the Line of Fire.

Thank you, Mike. I got a question about, as you know, the Hebrew language and also the Greek language of the Bible as masculine and feminine, very prominent, more than any other languages, really. And I was wondering about examples like Psalm 68, 11 and 12, where it says, the Lord gives the command and the women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host. And there's other passages where, as you know, there's Hebrew words with the masculine or feminine and Greek words with masculine or feminine. Does that affect doctrine or is that something that you notice or comment on or are there any books about that that sort of look at the masculine? Yeah, that verse, Psalm 68, is not generally brought into discussion about women in ministry, but it ought to be.

Mariah Woodworth Eder would refer to that as justification for women preaching. But number one, we understand in Hebrew, Greek and many other languages, actually, that every word has to be put in a category of either masculine or feminine. So be it chair, be it table, be it inanimate objects, whatever, be it a car, it has to be masculine or feminine. So often it has no significance whatsoever. In other words, it's just the way that it's classified. And some can go either way, like the Hebrew word derekh, which is road or way, that can be masculine or that can be feminine. And then in Greek, there's a neuter, which is neither masculine or feminine, but most everything is going to fall in the masculine or feminine category. And again, that's not unusual, you know, if you're talking to someone in Spanish or Italian, you know, you're talking to them as male or female, et cetera. But here, this is unambiguous. This is actually speaking of females making proclamation.

There's no question about it. Hence the new Jewish publication, Society Version, the Lord gives a command, the women who bring the news are a great host. So to me, there can be no question that women can preach the gospel as much as anyone else. The question is their role in the church. Should they have governmental authority? Can they teach men? Can they teach men under other male authority?

That's the debate. But as to women preaching the gospel, and this is specifically in Hebrew proclaiming the good news. In Hebrew, if you're just talking generically, then you use masculine. If I'm talking to a crowd of people and it's mixed, I use the masculine plural.

It would be like in New York talk like, hey, guys, and you're talking to male and female together. But if I say, hey, ladies, that means I'm speaking specifically to women. So this passage is definitely saying that God gives the command in this context and women share the good news, pronounce the good news. So women as preachers of the gospel, women as sharing the good news, women as evangelists, absolutely, this is a good text on which to base the argument. That's very good, very insightful. And you say the Greek also has masculine and feminine quite a bit also.

Yeah, yeah. Again, everything has to be in that category, but it doesn't mean there's anything to it. For example, telephone. So if it's modern Hebrew, if it's modern Arabic, if it's Greek, if it's got to be classified as either masculine or feminine.

And if I say it's a good phone. So in Hebrew, is it a tove phone that's masculine or tova phone that's feminine? I would have to know that.

Interesting story. There was a woman on the mission field that we know years back sharing the gospel with a woman in Italy. And this woman was a prostitute and the missionary sharing the gospel with her. And so she's got to address her, his sister, you know, Sorella, and speak to her in feminine, you know, verbal forms.

But as she's talking to her, she doesn't feel right doing that. Wants to address her as masculine. Turns out it was a man who was a transvestite prostitute. And he ended up getting wonderfully saved and serving on the missions team for many years.

Probably still is serving on the mission field. But it's interesting. She didn't feel right referring to this very obviously female woman who actually wasn't a woman.

This is way before transgender identity issues and things like that. So anyway, interesting story. Hey, thank you for the call. We'll be right back. All right, we go back to the phones. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's try Orlando again. Go ahead with your question, sir.

Good afternoon, Mr. Brown. Yeah, my question deals with the 70 weeks of Daniel, chapter 9 of Daniel. Because everybody being taught, starting with the decree given by the king Artaxerxes, 457 BC, but everybody says it's 445 BC. If you go 457 BC, it'll bring you straight out to 28 AD, which I believe that's when it happened. Right, so the question is, we know there's great debate from the decree, the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

Does that mean the decree from Cyrus would have been earlier? There are only four or five different candidates as to what it could be in terms of when it begins. But we know roughly that it has to be a time at the end of the exile when the word comes to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

So, you know, then you have no, it's much later, that's the Artaxerxes dates and you've got a couple possible dates there. When I've debated this with rabbis and things like that, I said, okay, well, let's agree on this, that it has to end when the Second Temple is destroyed. This is the time period that Jerusalem is going to be rebuilt, Second Temple is going to be built, and then it's going to be destroyed. And within this time, according to 924, six different things have to take place. That's where I put the emphasis.

I don't fight over what's called determinus aquo, the time from which it begins, determinus ad quem, the time at which it ends. That's the destruction of the Second Temple. So six major things have to happen, including atonement for sin and bringing of everlasting righteousness and culmination of guilt and sealing of prophecy, et cetera.

So I want to emphasize that those things had to happen within that time before the Second Temple was destroyed. And there's something significant about this anointed one being cut off and having nothing. So what does that mean? Who is that?

Who's the candidate? And then from there, of course, we preach that it must be Yeshua, it must be Jesus. So again... Go ahead. So we come to the seventeenth week. We've always been taught that the time stopped, and now is the grace time for the Church. What about if the time was never stopped?

Like when it happened when they were brought out of Egypt and then they spent the time in the Sahara Desert. So what about if the time never stopped and actually instead of being stopped and waiting on the seventeenth week, we're looking about a number which I gave him. It's 2520, which is seven. If you multiply seven times 360, which is biblical year, instead of that, we make all years. That'll make 2520 years. We will bring it from the decree all the way till now.

It'll be 2028. Have you ever heard that? No, but let me tell you why I dismiss.

I appreciate you digging and studying. First, the idea that we're in the grace period now and the seventieth week is still future, that's a dispensationalist teaching. That's a particular teaching within the body that is relatively modern and that is not universally received by any means and was unknown through much of Church history. So I dismiss that. I don't believe we're in a different period now where God's not dealing with Israel and just dealing with the Church. He's dealing with both an ongoing and simultaneous way.

That's the first thing. Second thing, the idea that a biblical year is 360 days, that's based on an argument from the flood and it's not substantiated through the rest of Scripture. It's a way to try to come up with a precise date that meets with a potential time for the crucifixion of Jesus. But either way, those years, there isn't after this between 69th and 70th weeks. So if you have a gap of some decades of something which we would accept from the death of the Messiah to the destruction of the temple, that's it. The idea that there's a precise figure here and it's still pointing to a future and you can pinpoint the date of the return of Jesus, I'd encourage you not to go down that path. It's just going to be needless speculation and not what the Bible's specifically teaching.

Look at it chronologically consecutively and look at the events that took place during that time period. Hey, thank you, sir, for probing and digging, but I'd have to differ there. All right, let's go over to Raleigh, North Carolina. Michael, welcome to the line of fire. Hi, yeah, I've heard you talk about Psalm 22. I think in one of your debates you said Psalm 22 is not quoted in the New Testament, which I know it's not, but I do think it's alluded to in Mark's Passionary—well, all the Passionary— Mark 22 is explicitly quoted. Mark 22 is absolutely quoted.

It's simply not the verse, they pierced my hands and feet. That's Psalm 22. Yes, Psalm 22. Verse 17, or 16 in Hebrew, I think. So yeah, I think that the fact that there are so many allusions to Psalm 22 within the Passion narrative, it almost, you know, it almost seems like it's presupposed that that verse is in the mind of the evangelists, and when they're writing their Gospels.

I don't know if you've—there's a great article that came out recently by Michael Flowers. It's called something like, what did the psalmist say about his hands and feet in Psalm 22? And he goes through all of the different conjectures about, you know, all these emendations and things that scholars try to make to the text. It's in Vitum Testamentum, or Vitum Testamentum, the journal. And he does talk about, like, the traditional Christian interpretation, which dates back, as far as the Septuagint, and I think also the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So it seems to be one of the oldest readings that we have. Yeah, and I think if it was extant in March day, then, you know, you would expect for the evangelists to sort of seize upon that, and I think that's the reason, that was the trigger for them using that factor. I say the trigger was Jesus quoting it with his own words. That was the trigger. Yeah, right, right.

That's the obvious trigger. And then other events unfold just like it as to why they didn't specifically quote that that's debatable. But they used other passages and didn't always quote exactly what you'd expect them to. But for sure, Jesus himself is drawing our attention to that psalm.

And you can be sure that as he opens the disciples' minds in Luke 24 to understand the scripture, that this would be something they would go to, which is why they themselves quoted. It's why there are key passages that are quoted. Yes, you can make a strong case for the earliest and original reading meaning they dug through, they bore through. Even the Hebrew, the later that we have in the Masoretic textual tradition, like a line, my hands and feet, the verb is missing.

So some rabbinic commentaries would even say like a line that they tore it, my hands and feet, or something like that, which works in the imagery as well. Hey, thank you for the call. Appreciate it.

Let's go to Jacob in East Hampton, Massachusetts. Welcome to the line of fire. Hi, yes, Dr. Brown, it's been a pleasure.

I've been listening to you for a while. I had a question about, and I'm sure you've heard this argument before, but I'm just wondering how you would combat this argument. But the question, I guess, is a lot of people say that the Bible isn't unique, and it's stealing from different religions or even Greek mythology and all these different things. And one thing I wanted to mention, even when it talks about the sons of God coming down from heaven and taking for themselves wives, you can see how they would say that seems kind of a bit like Greek mythology. But I just want to know, how do you combat that argument or that question that's usually raised against the gospel? With truth, it's really easy, because the more you put the Bible in its ancient and eastern background, the more it stands out remarkably.

So I would just tell someone, okay, let's start here. Just get online and let's find Babylonian creation accounts and Egyptian creation accounts, and let's read them. They're full of polytheism. They're full of rivalry between gods and crazy stuff. And then you read Genesis 1. It's like, where did that come from?

What world did that come from? Or say, okay, let's look at some of the various spiritual beliefs of the ancient world, and now let's read Isaiah 40 to 48. Think, how does this prophet stand out from that ancient world with the clear monotheism? And then it's like, okay, well, let's start reading in Proverbs 1 and see if it speaks to us, if it's relevant today, if the wisdom is for today.

And then I'd say, okay, let's go to the New Testament, and let's start to see what's historical background. How accurate is this account? How accurate is that account?

How accurate is this? How much does this tie in with the times, et cetera? So the more you do that, the more the Bible jumps out, quite remarkably so. To me, the best thing is to check out the allegations.

You know, that's the whole thing. And even in Genesis 6 stands out as an unusual passage that the Bible then refers to, and from what we can see, an angelic thing that happened that was condemned, that even that is not other gods. I always recommend a book by John Oswald on the subject, I'm sure it's still available, The Bible Among the Myths, Unique Revelation of Just Ancient Literature. So if you want to dig deeper, readily available, I just checked, The Bible Among the Myths, Unique Revelation of Just Ancient Literature. To me, the best antidote to that argument is to lean into it and to do the research. The more you do, do it with friends, skeptics, the more shocking it is, how the Bible written at that same time in the ancient world stands out, not just head and shoulders, but light years apart from the other literature. Hey, be blessed. Have a great July 4th weekend. Another program powered by the Truth Network.