The following is a prerecorded program. Yes, not everyone thinks I'm Jewish. There are those like the black Hebrew Israelite cult and others that say, well, you're not really Jewish because you're white, you're Caucasian, you're a descendant of the Khazar kingdom, that kind of nonsense. And then, of course, you have religious Jews who say, well, you're born Jewish, but you're no longer Jewish because you worship that idol Jesus and you've converted to Christianity. Good thing is I'm Jewish in God's sight.
The better thing is I'm in Jesus, Yeshua, and in him, all of these other issues, male, female, Jew, Gentile, slave, free, all of these are transcended because our ultimate identity is found in him. All right, I'm not going to be taking calls today, but I've solicited a bunch of questions on social media and we've got some fascinating questions we're going to get into today, digging into the Hebrew Scriptures, Jewish tradition, all kinds of things. So sit back, enjoy the broadcast. Don't post now because we've already solicited the questions that we'll be using for today. If you'd like to be in our loop on social media, if you're not connected with us on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or YouTube, those are the principal places where we post. Just go to our website, AskDrBrown.org, A-S-K-D-R Brown dot org, and you'll see where you can connect with us on Facebook or YouTube or Twitter or Instagram.
All right, let's go over to our Twitter questions first and let's see. Here's a question from Jim. Are Elohim and Adonai names that God tells us to call him or is Yahweh his name? So Y-H-W-H without vowels as it's spelled here, his name, and is it okay to address him by that name?
All right, Jim, thanks for the question. Let me make clear that Elohim simply means God in Hebrew, referring to idols, gods with a small g, referring to the one true God, God with a capital G. Adonai means Lord with a capital L or my Lord with a capital L. But God is addressed in these ways just as we say, oh, God, God help. Oh, Lord, I love you, Lord, I worship you. So when we use God and Lord, we're not using them as names, but as titles of this one that we worship. He is God. He is Lord.
So sometimes I pour out my heart, Father, Father. Sometimes I refer to him as Abba as I'm praying. Sometimes I refer to him, address him as God, sometimes as Lord.
And all of this is found within the Bible. For example, one of my favorite Psalms, Psalm 63, starts with the words Elohim, Eliyatah, God, you are my God. So he's just being addressed as God. So by all means, you can address him as God, as Lord. If you feel something special doing it in Hebrew or Greek, addressing him as theos or kurios, that's fine. We can call out to Jesus directly.
And yes, we can call out to Yahweh as Yahweh. There remains debate to this moment about the proper pronunciation of the name. I reject the arguments that it would have been pronounced originally Yehovah or Yehova. I reject those arguments.
But there are academic arguments for it. In other words, there are Hebrew scholars who argue for that even though they're in the very small minority. That being said, we don't know with 100% certainty that Yahweh is the right pronunciation. And you're certainly not going to say, oh, Y-H-W-H. Or in Hebrew, Yud-Heh-Vov-Heh. You're not going to cry out to God using letters, right? But if Yahweh is a name that in your heart helps you identify with the Lord, then using that name is helpful. Wonderful. If it's just helpful for you to say Lord or God or Father or Abba or sometimes just to cry out to Jesus, all of those, all of the above, are fine. But don't think that unless you're using the Hebrew that you're not rightly connecting with God.
Don't think that for a split second. Okay. Agustin asks, why Elisha the prophet cursed Gehazi's descendants with leprosy when God says he will not punish the children for the sins of their parents? Yeah, I appreciate both of these questions so far.
Actually, all the questions posted, I really appreciate. So number one, the law is that children are not put to death for the sins of the parents under the law, right? So if a man is a murderer, then his children are not put to death because he's being put to death as a murderer. That's under the law. And that is God's righteous way of dealing with humanity, obviously.
So he wants to establish that. At the same time, the sins of the parents are visited on the next generation and the next generation of those who refuse to serve the Lord. So that as each generation hardens its heart, the judgment gets more intense, the punishment, the reaping and sowing gets more intense. That being said, God might do something that does affect the descendants because of a judgment on someone's sin.
In other words, what you did is so bad that there's going to be a sign of it remembered in the generations that follow. However, I truly believe if any of those subsequent generations would turn to God in repentance, God would lift the curse. And we do have examples of that in the Bible where – or Gehazi, perhaps if he sufficiently repented, God might have lifted the curse on future generations. We do have examples. For example, King Jeconiah was cursed to have no children and yet we really had seven children while in exile.
And scripture indicates – it doesn't say it explicitly but very clearly indicates that he repented and therefore the curse was reversed. Okay, Piggy Pamster. I'm not going to try to discover how you came up with that screen name. Piggy Pamster. Some scholars say Yeshua could have been a stonemason rather than a carpenter, because the word used in the New Testament could have meant any type of craftsman would love to know your thoughts.
Yes, that is possible. Now, before I go any further, let me say this. Whether Jesus was a carpenter as he was growing up in his father's trade, whether he was a stonemason, it's immaterial in terms of his work as our savior, right? In other words, it's nothing that we should lose sleep over. It's nothing that we should look at and say, oh, no, but I always thought he was a carpenter. And I'm not saying that in a deriding way or a mocking way. No, no, but I mean sometimes these little things can throw us.
And we're like, but I always thought this, but I always thought that. So this is not important. This is not germane as far as our salvation, as far as our walk with God, as far as him being the perfect sacrifice for our sins, as far as him being the son of God, God incarnate.
None of that is germane, right? The question is, how should the Greek word be translated? Also, there's the argument that in the land of Israel and what subsequently became called Palestine, that you did not have a lot of trees. Remember the cedars of Lebanon are imported by Solomon, David and Solomon through Hiram and Phoenicia.
They are imported because you don't have these in the land of Israel. So there's the argument that there was not sufficient wood for carpentry work, but obviously there was carpentry work that was done and obviously wood was used whether it was imported or not. So there's nothing inherent that says he could not have been a carpenter. The Greek word, yes, could refer to a builder. It could refer potentially to a stonemason.
That's not just some weird, wacky internet theory. It is possible. However, it does seem that when references made to him in the centuries that followed, the memory that was preserved, the understanding that was preserved was that the word meant carpenter, not stonemason. So is it possible? He was a stonemason or a builder of a different kind? Possible.
But from the evidence we have, carpenter still seems to be the best rendering of the Greek and therefore no reason to abandon that. Let's see. Scrolling down here.
Let's go to Achille. I have seen you wearing kippos sometimes, as you're a messianic Jew. But is it not against for a man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. First Corinthians eleven seven.
Yes. So remember, the high priest himself wore a mitre, wore a particular kind of hat. So the high priest had his head covered in some way, right? So obviously, Paul was not saying that when God gave the Torah to Israel, that he was causing the high priest to sin in the process, that he was therefore guilty of offending God every moment and God put that in the law.
Obviously not. And the kippah does not cover the head. The kippah is just a small cap that goes on the top of the head to remind a traditional Jewish person that God is above and to always walk in the fear and honour of God. Now, from what we could tell in ancient Israel, the kippah was not worn even in the days of Jesus. It does not seem to be the norm.
It became the norm in the centuries that followed and not even through all of the world. It was it was a customary Jewish practice among traditional Jews. Of course, it has been for some time now, but covering the head would be something different. The bigger question would be if someone puts a prayer shawl on them and covers their head with a prayer shawl, that's now covering your head. Is that somehow dishonouring?
That's a separate question entirely. For the kippah, no, it is not actually covering the head. It is a sign on the head to remind the man that he is walking before the Lord in heaven. And again, to walk in the fear of God and to keep his commandments. Also, the question of hair length comes into play, which is another subject entirely and not one that we're just focusing on. Thirdly, Jewish Thursday.
But in short, no, wearing a kippah is not a violation of First Corinthians 11 and the high priest himself wore a kippah. Friends, have you checked out our Real Messiah website? Think of this. Everything on the site, every video, every article is free. It is our resource to you through the generosity of others that helps us reach more and more Jewish people with the good news of the Messiah. Can I give you an invitation? Why not pay forward for others to go to that website and get even more resources?
If you've been blessed by the generosity of others, why not become a partner with us? Go to AskDrBrown.org. AskDrBrown.org. Click on donate and then monthly support. Become a torchbearer. A dollar a day or more to become a torchbearer. You will help us reach Jewish people with the good news of the Messiah absolutely free, giving them access to all these materials and the body as a whole. Believers getting edified, getting help, getting answers to questions, answers to questions, getting material to help them reach Jewish people with the good news. So go to AskDrBrown.org.
Click on monthly support. Thank you in advance for paying forward for the next viewers. It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.
Get on the Line of Fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome, welcome to Thoroughly Jewish Thursday.
Michael Brown delighted to be with you. We are answering your social media questions today. I hope I trust you're finding these questions interesting and some that you have asked yourself. So we're not taking calls, but I trust that these answers to these questions will be edifying, uplifting and encouraging. All right, let's go to Pas Shalom. And we're still on Twitter.
We'll go over to Facebook a little while. Again, these are questions that were previously posted, so no need to post new questions now. Have you read, studied the books removed by Martin Luther, for example, Enoch, Baruch, Jubilees? What did the church do away with the appointed times and start mixing with pagan holidays?
You've basically got three separate issues here. Number one, Martin Luther did not remove these books. Martin Luther did not remove Enoch. Enoch was not part of the canon of the scripture, even in the Catholic Church. Enoch is only part of the canon of the scripture in the Ethiopian Church. So not all of it, but in the historic Ethiopian Church. So Enoch was not part of the Jewish canon or part of the Christian canon through history.
Martin Luther did not remove it. Baruch is different than Jubilees. All right, so these are disparate books. Some apocrypha, some what's called pseudepigrapha.
So these are disparate books, not all in the same class. But Martin Luther did not remove them. Rather, the Protestant Reformers went back to what they understood to be the early Jewish canon of scripture, with the Old Testament books being what we have as the Old Testament, and the New Testament books being what we have as the New Testament, and no other books. The Catholic Church, other branches included the so-called apocryphal books. The Reformers at first had them printed in the Bible in between Old and New Testament, but it was understood these are not for doctrine, these are not authoritative, but they're edifying and you should read them. But for example, Enoch was never part of that.
That's the first thing. Second thing, the Church didn't so much do away with the appointed times as develop new ongoing traditions. What I mean is that nowhere in the New Testament were Gentile Christians as a whole commanded to keep the Torah calendar. This was something that God gave to Israel.
This is something that has eternal significance in terms of the history it tells and how it points to Yeshua. But God did not command the first Gentile believers to keep the biblical calendar. Now, those of them that came to faith in the synagogue, they were God-fearers like some of the Corinthians. They learned about the God of Israel there, but they didn't convert to Judaism.
Then they heard the Gospel, they became believers, and now they understood the Jewish heritage better. They may have been more inclined to keep the biblical calendar. But otherwise, you're dealing with the Gentile world in which there was no seventh-day Sabbath, so you were just working on the seventh day. That was not a day of rest for you like it was in the Jewish community. And from what we can tell in the early Church documents for centuries, they were not following the biblical calendar, nor did God tell them to. They were not keeping a seventh-day Sabbath. They were not following explicitly the Jewish calendar. Rather, they were now celebrating the death and resurrection of Jesus around the time of the Passover. That was now the new and greater emphasis. And as for those Jewish believers that were keeping the biblical calendar, they were looked at oddly, like, what is going on here?
Why are you doing that? Sometimes they were excluded. Now, I don't mean that was the right thing. Of course, it was terribly wrong to exclude them and not to recognize that as Jews they were still called to be Jews. However, there is no evidence that the Gentile Christians were all following the biblical calendar, then abandoned it.
No, they were never commanded to. As for mixing with pagan holidays, that's really a debate. For example, Christmas celebrated on December 25th, or the birth of Jesus.
Why was that done? Some argue, and even in the early Church, that he was born December 25th. Of course, there are strong arguments against that. But the other argument is, yeah, it was a pagan holiday. It was a celebration of the sun god. It was a pagan holiday. But so many Gentiles, so many pagans, so many idolaters were coming to faith in Jesus that now they said, well, let's redeem the day.
Why should it belong to it? Every day belongs to God. Why should that day be idolatrous, a celebration known as a celebration of some false deity?
Let's make it a day to celebrate the birth of Jesus. So, did things become more pagan in certain ways over the centuries? Yes. Was there more compromise over the centuries?
Yes. But the idea of the Church developing traditions and saying, here's how we want to celebrate the Lord, there was nothing wrong with that as long as the traditions were themselves not sinful or wrong or taking people away from the one true God. So, I'd encourage you to restudy some of those issues because it seems you've taken in some information from some broad internet arguments that's not really scholastic and accurate. Jason, thoughts on the two powers in heaven. So, this is both a concept and the title of a book by Alan Segal. The concept is that in early Judaism, even though it was strictly monotheistic, there was a recognition of two powers in heaven. Even if there was the greatest power, the power of God himself, there was a lesser power that was divine as well.
Of course, in saying this, I'm oversimplifying things. What's my own view on it? I've tried to revisit that recently. I've tried to think about it again in light of interaction I've had with counter missionaries who really seek to downplay that. The question is, one, to what extent was this a matter of a wrong concept, an idolatrous concept that the early Jewish leaders rejected? Another question is, to what extent was it a parallel that points to Jesus Yeshua? In other words, that Judaism was ready to have the concept of two powers, so the Father God, the Lord, the Messiah, that that concept could rise out of that. My own view is that certainly there were these different exalted beings, be it an exalted angel or an exalted person like Melchizedek that becomes like an exalted, almost deified, messianic figure. They certainly existed.
To what extent were they part of what became rabbinic Judaism? That can be debated. But certainly at the time of Yeshua, these types of concepts were known and were there. To what extent did that prepare the way for the coming of a divine Messiah, for the word becoming flesh? That's more debatable to me because one way or another, these parallels only go so far. It's a complex academic discussion, and again, I've gotten into it more recently with one counter missionary rabbi in particular who's really been studying these issues and studying what the New Testament says and challenging some of our common assumptions. But I don't believe that even if the concept of two powers in heaven was more widespread than traditional Jews might want to acknowledge, and in certain ways paved the way for the messianic understanding, still what the New Testament teaches in my view goes beyond that. In other words, this is a pointer in a certain direction, but Yeshua being the word made flesh goes even further than that. So perhaps useful background, useful conceptual background, but not the ultimate parallel that some would point you to say this is kind of a forerunner of the idea of a divine Messiah. So those are my views, but I'm trying to revisit this as time permits. Let's see, another from Achille.
Okay, tell you what, we'll do two from Achille. Religious Jews pray towards Jerusalem as Daniel and Solomon did in the Tanakh. Why don't we Christians follow it? Is there any command in the Bible regarding the direction of prayer? For the Jewish people, yes, that was a directive or at least an example that was set. Daniel did it from exile, but that would go back to Solomon's prayer in First Chronicles, the eighth chapter, where he speaks about praying towards this temple if we are in exile. So it has become Jewish tradition over the centuries that synagogues would face Jerusalem, that you would turn wherever you were if you're in a different location, that you would turn towards Jerusalem to pray.
So this remains the custom among traditional Jews all around the world to this day. You say, why don't Christians do it? Well, because Christians are not looking at God in that localized way. We believe that Jesus will return to Jerusalem instead of his kingdom there. Nonetheless, John 4, as Jesus is dealing with the Samaritan woman, he tells her that the hour was coming that the worship is not going to be limited to Jerusalem or this mountain where the Samaritans worshipped, right?
But rather, the Father is looking for worshippers who will worship him in spirit and in truth. So based on that, we do not point in a specific direction as we pray. It's not a sin to, but there's not a need to, there's not a theological reason to, there's not a benefit gained by it. Our whole idea is not next year in Jerusalem and looking forward to being together in the land. That's not the whole goal. That's not the whole purpose. So we don't pray towards Jerusalem. It's not given as a command to do, especially in the New Testament way.
And based on Yeshua's words in John 4, there is no specific reason to do so or need to do so. And let's see, Mike's question. We'll get to this on the other side of the break.
Then we'll switch over to Facebook. You say, Dr. Brown, I'm not able to call and I miss when you're asking for questions on social media, but I've got some difficult Jewish questions. I'm sharing the gospel with a Jewish friend. Lots of questions come up. Remember to go to realmessiah.com. You get a lot of answers there, but you can also write to us. We have a team member that works with me in answering your Jewish related questions, your theological questions, your biblical questions, a biblical scholar, a part of our team that helps with it. So feel free to contact us through our website if you can't call or reach us on social media through one of these shows. That's at AskDrBrown.org. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown.
Get on the line of fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome back to Thoroughly Jewish Thursday, Michael Brown. So blessed to have this time with you. I'm not taking phone calls.
I'm not soliciting new questions now. I'm answering some of your really excellent questions that have been posted on our Twitter and Facebook accounts. So if you're not connected to me on either of those, if you're on Twitter, I am at Dr. Michael L. Brown.
So there are two L's there. Dr. Michael L. Brown. That's really me on Twitter, even though I don't have the blue dot or arrow or whatever. Facebook, Ask Dr. Brown. A-S-K-D-R Brown on Facebook.
Same on YouTube. That's our channel. A-S-K-D-R Brown. Instagram, Dr. Michael Brown.
But no L in the middle of that, all right? So back to Twitter questions. This is from Mike. Not sure if this quite qualifies, but I'm wondering if you could give your best hypothesis about the dating of the book of Joel. Thanks.
Love your work. Appreciate that, Mike. So I don't know when Joel was written and I have remained agnostic. There are late dates for Joel and early dates for Joel.
Mike, as you would know by asking your question. The fact that we have in the order of the minor prophets Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah goes on from there and then you end with Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. So you end with postexilic prophecies, Malachi being say a century after the return from exile.
It's clearly getting later and later in dates coming closer and closer to New Testament times. You start with Hosea. Actually Amos would be clearly the oldest, but Hosea, contemporary of Hosea or older contemporary of Hosea. Amos before that, then Joel is put there as if Joel is early, but Joel just doesn't give us specific dates.
So it's, it's been looked at as, as pre-exilic a couple of centuries before the exile, even, even the time of the Assyrian exile or postexilic. And because I'm not a Joel scholar, I've never done a commentary on Joel. I have never done extended teachings on Joel, taught on the minor prophets decades ago. And of course taught Old Testament survey many times in the earlier days, but I've never focused on it. So I don't have an opinion about the dating of Joel. I read it in a way that is more timeless and less applicable to different situations in Israel's history.
So sorry to disappoint, but I do not have a viewpoint on that. Scott, James 4-5, 1 Corinthians 15-3 says, according to scriptures, but I can't find those quoted anywhere in the Old Testament. My question is, was it common to interpret scripture without a direct quote, and is there a certain way the Jews in those days interpreted scripture? 1 Corinthians 3, verse 15-3 does not say according to scripture, but scriptures that Paul is referring to several verses and concepts in the Old Testament. I have a whole video on that rebutting counter missionary, Rabbi Tovias Singer.
So go to AskDrBrown.org or YouTube channel, AskDrBrown, and search for the word phantom. Was Paul quoting a phantom scripture? And you'll see the verses that he was referring to and the concepts that he was referring to about the Messiah rising on the third day. So there's actually a rich background from the Hebrew Bible, from the Old Testament, to that quote. As for James 4-5, there's really a lot of debate about it.
So if we do as we often do on the air, because it's easy to do, we go to NetBible.org. We go to James, Jacob in the Greek, chapter 4. And we go to verse 5, do you think the scripture means nothing when it says the Spirit of God caused to live within us has an envious yearning? And then the question is, what is he referring to? And let's just see how much discussion there is here.
Okay, doesn't get into that as much as I thought it might here. Except to say no Old Testament verse is worded exactly this way. This is either a statement about the general teaching of scripture or a quotation from an ancient translation of the Hebrew text that no longer exists today.
So that's how the NET summarizes it. In short, if scripture is being quoted, the authors meant scripture. Either it's a translation that we don't have of a particular verse, or it's a concept that they are paraphrasing. But they do mean scripture when they do refer to it.
And 1 Corinthians 15 is referring to multiple scriptures. Dunamis Minds Clothing, the Obadiah alliance said the Igbo, or descendants of ancient Israelites, are the descendants of the Igbo, victims of the transatlantic slave trade, Israelites also. Some, I believe, I believe that some of the Igbo that were kidnapped and enslaved would have been descendants of ancient Israelites or married into the Jewish people through conversion. So that's why there are traditions that have been preserved from African slaves that just became part of the African-American population of America that their roots go back to the ancient tribes.
And in some cases, it seems to be accurate. Caleb, we were discussing if Elijah, Enoch, possibly Moses went through the bosom of Abraham or not because Moses and Elijah appeared with Yeshua on the mount. Not a Jewish question per se, but how does the text render this? The Bible doesn't tell us directly.
It simply doesn't tell us. Enoch, Genesis 5-24, walked with God and he was not, God took him. Elijah, 2 Kings 2, he's taken up to heaven in chariots of fire and a whirlwind. Moses, God buries in Deuteronomy 34, we don't know where. And then, as you rightly said, Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17, Mark 9 and Luke 9. But it doesn't say, and was Abraham's bosom a specific place, referring to paradise before the cross and resurrection, the place where the righteous dead went? And then when the Messiah died and rose, he brought them to heaven. Those are all speculative questions and we do not have specific data in the Bible to give a definitive answer. Or were these righteous ones all immediately taken into God's heavenly presence and still waiting for a final cleansing of the heavenlies by the blood of Messiah? These are debatable issues that the Bible does not speak to directly. So I heard so-and-so, they're really dogmatic about it, fine, but they don't have the ability to be dogmatic based on scripture. Where I can be dogmatic, trust me, I am. Where there's debate and it's hard to come to a final conclusion, I try to leave it there.
Alright, let's go over to Facebook. We'll start with Jeff. Here's one in Genesis 12, 3 addressing Abraham, it says, and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed. I've often heard believers use it as an encouragement for world missions, but I was wondering about its use as Messianic prophecy, kind of like the way we point to Daniel on that the Messiah had to come before the destruction of the second temple. Yeshua is the only likely candidate, given that there are people from all the families of the earth who believe in him and have a relationship with God through him. We see that as a fulfillment of the promise in Genesis 12, 3. How would a counter-missionary view that verse as being fulfilled if not in Yeshua?
Thanks. Yeah, Jeff, it's a very fair question. Number one, in and of itself, it's not a calling to world missions. But it goes hand in hand with world missions because God's people take the message of Abraham's seed, the Messiah, to the entire world.
But that's not the primary purpose of that passage. It is a promise to Abraham, and it's reiterated subsequently through Isaac, Jacob, and then Balaam to Israel as a whole that blessing would come to those that bless Israel and curse would come to those that revile Israel. But the specific blessing promise, a traditional Jew would say, yes, this is happening. The Jewish influence in the world continues to be positive. And it is through Jewish influence and the law of Moses and the prophets that much good has come to the world and has even influenced world religions in certain positive ways. And they would take some of the verbs in a reflexive way that all the nations would bless themselves saying, oh, may we be like Abraham's seed, like the people of Israel, and this will ultimately happen through the Messiah.
We, of course, use the argument you're using. I agree with it, that God's intention was to bless the nations of the earth through Abraham's seed, ultimately meaning through the Messiah. And thus, there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who worship and love and serve the God of Israel through this Jesus Yeshua. Yes, this is further evidence of his messianic claims. So I agree with where you're going with this.
Let's see. Amichai, looks like, if I'm reading the Hebrew right, in the Shema, Deuteronomy 6.4, we see that there is one Yahweh. In other books of the Bible, we see that there is only one who is Yahweh is God. If the name of God the Son is Yahweh and the name of the Father is Yahweh, then we have two Yahwehs. And if the name of one of them isn't Yahweh, then we have that God isn't Yahweh. Thank you from a rabbinical Jew in Jerusalem. Thank you so much for asking that great question.
So let me ask you this question. What do you do with Genesis 19, 24, where it says... that the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah, sulfurous fire from the Lord out of heaven. So YHVH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah, sulfurous fire from Yahweh, from YHVH out of heaven. Now you can see what the Mafarshims say, what the rabbinic interpreters say, but are there two Yahwehs? Or is it Yahweh in heaven, Yahweh on the earth? Because if you look at Genesis 18, start in verse 1 and read to the end and then to Genesis 19, 1, it's good that Yahweh appears with two malachim, two angels.
They all look like men. Then Yahweh stays and has an extended conversation with Abraham. Was he not in heaven at the same time?
Of course he was. But he's on the earth here talking with Abraham. When he's done, he leaves. And then the two malachim come to Sodom, to Sodom. So there is one Yahweh, one God, who is Father, Son, and Spirit. He can be here on earth and in heaven at the same time because he's God. When we say the Shema Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheno Adonai Echad, we're proclaiming that there are not multiple Yahwehs in different cities, like the different Baalim, the different Baals. No, there's one Yahweh, and only one, and we worship him alone, him Echad, him alone.
That's another aspect of Echad, right? And see what I think Ibn Ezra Rashrom is saying on the Shema as well. But the point is, he is the in-self. He fills the universe. So he can be Yahweh on the earth, Yahweh in heaven. He can be Yahweh Father, Son, and Spirit because he is transcendent and infinite. And even in Genesis 19, 24, it's not just a figure of grammatical speech here.
No one has more than that. Yahweh on earth, raining down, self-inspired, right, on southern Yomorrah, out of heaven, Yahweh in heaven. Thank you for the question. I'm so glad that you are asking it. It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the Line of Fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH.
Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome, welcome to our 30 Jewish Thursday broadcast. I am so thrilled to hear from rabbinical Jews in Jerusalem. We know that many do listen, watch.
I don't mean many like this. This is the big thing with hundreds of thousands of religious Jews in Israel who are secretly watching our stuff. But a few years back in one of our Israel trips, a traditional Jewish young man came up to me in the old city of Jerusalem, Dr. Brown, I can't believe it's you.
We watch your debates all the time. My friends and I, you're a traditional Jew. The more we talked, he said, well, I was raised in a Christian home.
I was never a Christian. He said, but, you know, I've been studying here in Jerusalem. He's ultra-orthodox. I said, you're friends? He goes, yeah, ultra-orthodox. Also, we watch your debates together.
He came back later, wanted a picture with me, so they believe he actually was with me. I said, hey, man, you keep studying, keep searching, keep praying, and God will work in your heart. So glad to have folks that interact with us on social media who differ. And Amichai, let me encourage you to visit our Real Messiah website, realmessiah.com.
If you haven't gone there, check out a lot of the materials that are there. All right. Hallet, Jonathan. Hey, Dr. Brown, what did Jesus mean when he said this? Did Abraham know Jesus was coming to earth? And does that mean Abraham knew Jesus before his incarnation and first your father, Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad. John 8 56.
So it's a very interesting question. It could mean that God gave Abraham a revelation of Yeshua in some way and that he foresaw aspects of the Messiah and rejoiced in it. It could mean simply that he believed the promise that was given to him, as Galatians 3 indicated, that through his seed, the whole earth would be blessed.
We just talked about that in the previous segment. And in seeing that and recognizing that and believing that he saw his day, some would say it was foreshadowed in the Akedah, the binding of Isaac, that he was given insight that this was just like the Messiah who would be given to the point of death and delivered from death, been as good as dead and yet delivered from death. So it could be any of those. Those are the three principal possibilities that present themselves. Some outright additional revelation be almost written in scripture or the binding of Isaac and how that foreshadowed the Messiah or the promise to bless the world through his seed, whom he was given revelation would be the Messiah. Genesis 18, the Lord coming to him, is that what it's referring to? I don't think that's what's in mind here.
It's not impossible, but I don't think so. A Sandi, the last three fall feast days, yet to be fulfilled by the Messiah's second coming, how does that fit into his return as the feast days like the spring feast or a pattern and timeline to the day and hour that cannot be moved around to fit doctrine or separated by time other than was given? At the time of Passover and rises at the time of firstfruits and the Holy Spirit is given at the time of Shavuot Pentecost, does that indicate that Jesus will come back literally on Yom Teruah, the day of the sounding of the trumpet, which has become Rosh Hashanah, so the first day of the seventh month, in which case we would know the day or the hour. Now the idea that Rosh Hashanah was known or Yom Teruah was known in the ancient Jewish world as the time when no one knows the day or the hour because it was the first day of the month and you had to verify that by the moon, etc.
That's an infinite myth. There's no rabbinic text, ancient rabbinic text that says it was known as the time when no one knew the day or the hour. So the fact that Jesus tells us that would tell me that he's not coming on that precise day. The book 88 Reasons Why Jesus is Coming in 1988 argued that he'd be coming on September 12th of 1988 because that was Rosh Hashanah, Yom Teruah on that year. But because it says we don't know the day or the hour, I look at these as types, as patterns, and of course we know he's coming with the sound of the trumpet, Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 11, the seventh of seven trumpets is the kingdom of God coming on the earth.
But I don't look at a specific day because again that's contrary to what he said. So it's a question many have asked of course, but I can't see that it has to be on that specific day, the first day of the seventh month of the biblical calendar in terms of his return. Matthew, I'm wondering what your opinion is regarding Ezekiel's wheel.
What do you think he saw? What is its meaning? I don't know.
I don't know. Where in the Bible does it give me more information on the meaning of the wheel? It's a glorious vision. It's a mystical vision. There's a whole branch of rabbinic mystical literature called Merkava literature. It's Merkava's chariot. So Ezekiel's chariot vision and Jewish mysticism.
And there are all kinds of interesting Christian teachings from it. This much I'll say it wasn't a UFO. It wasn't a UFO, but it somehow was the way that the chariot moved and hence the wheels on the chariot and with these angelic beings in the midst of it. But beyond that, what's the meaning beyond the chariot wheel?
I don't know. I don't know that the Bible tells us. Andrew, what is Preterism? Did Jesus come back in AD 70?
Everything got fulfilled in AD 70. Preterism says that all or many of the New Testament prophecies have already been fulfilled. A partial Preterist says that there are still future prophecies that will be fulfilled at the end of this age and we go into the new heavens and the new earth, but that Jesus came in the year AD 70 and many of the major New Testament prophecies have already been fulfilled. A full Preterist says we are now living in the new heavens and the earth.
Yeah, true on that. That Jesus has already returned and that there is no physical resurrection, only a spiritual resurrection. So full Preterism is really dangerous and some would say even crosses the line of heresy because it denies a future resurrection and a future second coming. A partial Preterism I believe is very wrong biblically and you can check out my recent mini debate with Gary DeMar on Matthew 24.
I guess it's a regular debate, not a mini debate, on Matthew 24 and have all the events there already been fulfilled. It is so clear that when Jesus comes with the sound of the trumpet, which is what's spoken of in Matthew 24, that we will be caught up to meet him together in the year. First Thessalonians 4 as well, that we will be changed, that we will receive our resurrected bodies.
Alright, I'm not talking about a Pre-Trib rapture, but when he appears for the world to see, we're caught up with him, we descend together with him. That he makes clear the end of the age of which he speaks in Matthew 24, which we see in Matthew 13 and Matthew 28, is not speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, but rather the end of this age when he comes to the earth. Second Thessalonians 1 destroys the wicked. Second Thessalonians 2 destroys the antichrist with the fire of his presence, establishes his kingdom on the earth. Those things have not yet happened.
No, no, no. Jesus did not return in the year 70. Was it an aspect of the coming of God in judgment? You've had that many times in the Old Testament, many times through history since, then God coming in judgment. Is that the coming of the Lord that's spoken of in Matthew 24 categorically?
No. Del, as the follower of Christ, it's just more of an observation than a question that seems many orthodox or practicing Jews. Looked distastefully as us charismatic Christians indulge in the miraculous gifts, manifestations of the spirit in the context of the battle against the enemy or revival and restoration. But as I read the Old Testament, I find some very strange and crazy accounts of the very thing dreams, visions prophesy, but when we show first proclamation, singing, dancing, praising, et cetera.
For example, 1 Samuel 19, 2 Chronicles 20, Judges 7, your thoughts. Yeah, Del, traditional Jews don't really know much about charismatics. Traditional Jews are not thinking about charismatics. The ones that are thinking about charismatics more are cessationist Christians and worldly people that don't know the Lord and see some of our practices. But traditional Jews, they're not thinking much about charismatic Christians. They probably don't know much about them, don't know much about our practices, but you're absolutely right to say there are many unusual things recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures and it shouldn't surprise us if some of those unusual things happen today. David, if Moses came back to Israel and said, Yeshua is the Messiah with signs and wonders like he worked in Egypt, how do you think the Jews in Israel would respond? That's a pretty massive if, right? If they could know that this is actually Moses back from the dead in indisputable ways, and it was recognized by the rabbinic community. I mean, there's no prophecy that that's going to happen to Elijah.
That'd be one thing. But if it was verified by the rabbinic leaders as one, the major rabbinic leader said, Yes, this is generally Moses. Then he began to work signs and wonders and then said Yeshua is the Messiah. An if like that would be pretty massive, okay? And you would imagine that many would believe it. Others would just say false prophet, Deuteronomy 13, telling us to follow other gods. But the if is an if, it's just a creation.
So we have to just go by current reality. And 2 Samuel 7, the prophet Nathan advised David to build a house for the Lord, saying the Lord is with you. The Lord revealed that David would not build it.
Well, that's because Nathan on his own said, You go do it, go for it. And then he got a word from the Lord. The Lord said, No, you're not the one to do it. Jeremiah 22, 30, Jeremiah prophesied that none of Jehoiachin's offspring would succeed in sitting on the throne of David. But in 2 Kings 24, 6, we're told he had success.
Does this mean the Old Testament prophecy is fallible? No, it means that he repented. He repented. He doesn't have a successor in 2 Kings 24, 6. But later on, his grandson, Zerubbabel, becomes the leader in Jerusalem.
Not the king, but the governor. It's an indication that Jeconiah repented. Read Jeremiah 52 from where Jehoiachin, Jeconiah, the same person, Jeconiah. So read that Jeremiah 52, and you'll see how he gets lifted up at the end of his life. It's an indication that he repented.
Read Haggai 2. That's another indication he repented. Similar language used to Jeremiah 22. So it's not fallibility. It's a matter of the first, Nathan just gave his own word, and then God said, No, here's the prophecy. And then Jeremiah gave a true word from God, Jeconiah repented, and God reversed the curse. Visit us on RealMessiah.com. Don't forget.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-04-04 01:14:23 / 2023-04-04 01:33:45 / 19