Dr. Brown Answers Your Best Bible Questions

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

The following is a prerecorded program. You've got questions. Oh, you've got questions today.

We've got answers. It's time for The Line of Fire with your host, biblical scholar and cultural commentator, Dr. Michael Brown. Your voice for moral sanity and spiritual clarity. Call 866-34-TRUTH to get on The Line of Fire. And now here's your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Hey friends, Michael Brown, delighted to be with you today on The Line of Fire. Thank you so much for joining us. I'm not taking calls today, but I'm answering a bunch of questions on specific Bible verses and passages that were previously posted on Facebook.

So don't post anything now. These were previously posted, and I'm going to go through as many as I can in the order in which I received them, but we got a bunch of really excellent questions today. Your calls are always terrific.

Now we're going to answer some terrific questions here. I'm going to let you know during the show how you can get sent out virtually immediately. I mean, within a couple of days of getting your call, we'll be shipping these out, signed, numbered copies of why so many Christians have left the faith before it's in the bookstores, before it's released online. You'll get it from us.

All right, I'll let you know how you can do that a bit later in the broadcast. Brandon asked this, Galatians 5, 24. Can you elaborate how to apply this and actually crucify the flesh, sin, nature? So I just want to back up in Galatians, the fifth chapter, because starting in verse 17, Paul is talking about the works of the flesh, which he enumerates.

In other words, when you are in the flesh, this will manifest in these various ways, right? The flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit. The spirit was contrary to the flesh. They're in conflict with each other, so that you're not to do whatever you want, but if you're led by the spirit, you're not under the law. So it's not a matter of an external law telling you, don't do this, don't do that, but by the spirit, you're doing what is right. And then verse 19, the acts of the flesh are obvious. Sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, so it goes on with that list. Then verse 22, but the fruit of the spirit, so as you walk in the spirit, the fruit that will be naturally born is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

Against such things there is no law. Remember the Galatians were hung up on the idea that they had to observe the law of Moses in order to be saved. Those who belong to Christ, Jesus, have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the spirit, let us keep in step with the spirit.

Let us not become conceited, provoking, and emming each other. So verse 24, those who belong to Christ, Jesus, have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. So the great question that's being asked is, how do you do it?

Great, how do you do it? I remember going to college, listening to a Christian teacher on the radio, and he was saying, when I get up in the morning, it's not me, it's Jesus. When I do this, it's not me, it's Jesus. And I would say, well, God, I'd like to know how, because when I wake up in the morning, it feels like me. Oh, girl, you started, it feels like me.

How do you do it? So the idea that we can just kind of coast through life, get this revelation, and never have a battle, no, no, no. Paul tells us there's a battle, there's a conflict. So these are some of the key ways that we crucify the flesh. One is by cultivating intimacy with God. It's just like if you eat healthily day in, day out, your body will change. If you work out regularly, your body will change.

If you study and discipline yourself, your mind will change. Well, anything you practice, give yourself to all the more. Spending quality time with God, there's no substitute for it. Taking in the Word, meditating on the Word, not just studying intellectually, but taking it as food, as life. Spending quality time in prayer, worship, enjoying the presence of God with other believers. This now builds us up, this now strengthens us, and it's the Holy Spirit who does the work.

And then secondly, we renew our mind according to the Word. I'm dead to sin. I'm alive to God. Through baptism, I died to sin, and I've been raised in new life.

You just go through these things. That's what baptism symbolizes and shows. Go through the various verses. Read through Romans 6 and Romans 8. Remember Romans 7, whatever it's saying is sandwiched in between Romans 6 and Romans 8. And then be ruthless with sin.

Where you see an open door, shut it. Where you see something that is pulling you into sin over and over, shut that door even if it's costly. It's less costly to deal with sin than it is to give way to sin. And as you'll do these things, cultivating life in the Spirit, receiving God's grace, his grace empowers us to live above sin, renewing our mind according to the Word, and then being ruthless with sin, you'll see changes in your life in an ongoing way. Rick wants to know, what's my take on 2 Kings 2, 23 to 25? It is a passage which raises a number of difficulties because it seems a bit harsh.

So I'm just going to read this now. 2 Kings 2. And Elisha, after Elijah has ascended to heaven, Elisha, his disciple. By the way, in Hebrew the names are not close. It's Eliyahu and Elisha, right? So Elijah and Elisha in English.

Elisha goes up to Bethel and he's walking along the road. Some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. The Hebrew would indicate boys. It's not talking about, from what we can tell, men in their 30s or 40s or even 20s.

It's boys. They jeered at him, get out of here baldy, get out of here baldy. He turned around, looked at them, and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the boys and he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

All right, number one, it would seem that these boys were guilty of doing something very bad. In other words, it wasn't just that he had a bald head maybe that was associated with his prophetic ministry or something. Whatever it was, it seemed to be more than a personal insult, which is why he calls out the bears in the name of the Lord and they mauled these kids.

It's a severe thing. It could have been they had generations of God-mockers among them. It could have been this was a further expression of the depravity of the community there and their lostness and their hatred of God and it was manifest through them and so judgment came on them.

Seems harsh, but that's one way to read it, just plain like that. The other is that Elisha now had supernatural power but he misused it. That as a prophet and dude with a double portion of Elijah's spirit, meaning twice what the other disciples would get, that he abused his power. And there are some Jewish reflections over the centuries that say, yeah, he later suffers.

He's sick with the sickness in 2 Kings 13 and it ties in with him being too harsh here. I don't read it like that myself, but it is a possibility. Otherwise, there's more to the text than meets the eye. There must have been more ugliness going on.

These children must have been more informed than we might realize and therefore there was a very strong public judgment. All right, let us go to Mark. Matthew 7, 6. Do not give us dogs with us. Holy do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. Now I've read some reconstructions of this saying if there was an Aramaic original, he was actually saying this, not what we have in Greek.

It's ingenious, but the Greek is what we have, and in context it makes sense. So Jesus has been talking about making proper judgments, not being judgmental, not condemning with our judgments, not using a double standard, being hypocrites, but being consistent in our judgments. And this way we can rightly know what to do. And then from here, do not give dogs with us. Holy do not throw your pearls before pigs. So he's using an analogy, right, or a metaphor. Speaking of dogs and pigs, when he's referring to human beings, who is he referring to? He's referring to mockers. He's referring to those who have no heart for God. He's not referring to a seeker or someone that's open or someone who just doesn't know the Lord. He's referring to someone hostile, mocking, and in that situation you do not want to share the beauty of the gospel and deep spiritual truths. Let me give you an example. There are things that you'll only share with your closest friend or with a spouse or a family member.

They're so precious. They're so personal that you just won't share them with others. You may be the pastor of a congregation and going through something very, very deep and God dealing with you in your own life, and as much as you'd love to share it with your congregation, they won't get it. It's too personal between you and God. They might misunderstand and think, wow, you're in bad shape or something like that, and it's really just a deep dealing of God in your own life. So this is something that over a period of time may be the fruit of it you get to share, but you can't share the thing itself because people just won't get it. They won't understand it. Well, all the more, if I know someone as a God mocker, when I say a word about God, when I talk about a miracle, when I talk about his goodness, it just sets them off. They curse and they rail. What's the point of it? I've been in some forums online.

I'm all for outreach. I go in the hot seat all the time. I'm all for going on hostile territory, but I've been in forums sometimes like, I'm out of here.

The more I talk, the more they mock. So on the one hand, it's counterproductive. All you're doing is pushing them further away. Sometimes you just have to step back and pray for people. That's one thing. A second thing is that sometimes you are cheapening your message now, and you're getting the slop and the junk on you in the process.

You're feeling defiled. So you step back. There's a time to share.

There's a time not to share. There's an environment where you go in and minister and take the hits, and there's another environment where you step back because it's just going to subject the gospel to mockery and further harden people's hearts, and they're not worthy of hearing this. Josh asked this, and these are questions on specific Bible verses.

All of the questions on today's show are on specific Bible verses. Hebrews 12 17, for you know that even afterwards, speaking of Esau, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears. Repentance there is probably not the best translation. It could well mean change of mind. Now you said, Dr. Brown, I've heard you say for years that the Greek word metanoia does not just mean change of mind. Oh, it can mean change of mind in certain contexts, but the vast majority of its usage in the Greek New Testament, as recognized by all top lexicons and commentators with almost without exception, that metanoia is not just a change of mind, but a change of mind and heart and life. It is repentance.

It is a turnaround by the grace of God. So what it's saying here about Esau is he couldn't get his father Isaac to change his mind. Isaac had already blessed. He'd given the blessing to Jacob, and he couldn't get a change of mind, even though he sought it with tears. So he couldn't get Isaac to change his mind, even though he sought that with tears. It couldn't be that he didn't find a place of personal repentance, even though he sought it with tears. It's possible because you can seek something with tears and not really want it. You can seek it with tears, and it's like, oh, it's going to cost you this. No, I don't want it.

It could be tears of anger, tears of disappointment, but I think the more natural way to read it is he didn't find you couldn't get a change of mind, even though he sought it with tears. All right, we're going to be right back on the other side of the break. We are going to get back into your Bible-related questions, and I'll let you know how you get a copy of Why So Many Christians Have Left the Faith. 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 back to The Line of Fire.

Michael Brown delighted to be with you again. So I promised I'd let you know, if you haven't pre-ordered your copy of Why So Many Christians Have Left the Faith, it's not just pre-ordered. We've got them in advance, so we're going to pre-send them to you.

So I want to give you a phone number. This is exclusively for this book. All right, it's not to get other materials on our website and things like that, but in particular, this book, brand new, hot off the press, Why So Many Christians Have Left the Faith, the whole deconstruction thing, and famous leaders leaving the faith. You'll understand why, what's going on. You'll understand the way back. If that's you, this book is for you.

If you're one that's in the midst of deconstruction, this is perfectly for you. So here's a number to call 800-538-5275. Got that? 800-538-5275. Or if you like 800-5385, ask ASK. Yes, it's an honor to ask Dr. Brown. So get as many copies as you want. We're glad to assign them to as many people as you want. And you can also go to the website, askdrbrown.org.

Just click on store and you can order there. All right, back to your questions. Rowdy, 2 Thessalonians 2-8, and then the lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming. The word lawless or wicked is the Greek animos, which translates into destitute of the Mosaic law or of the Gentiles. Could that be the strainer of verse six, the Torah?

No, no. Animos is not destitute of the Torah. In fact, if you look at animia actually, right, animia in the Greek, in the Septuagint, look up every single time that it occurs. It means wickedness. It doesn't mean rejecting Torah. Well, rejecting Torah is part of wickedness, but just because animos means without law, it's not specifically speaking of Torah. That's why it's largely spoken of just as wickedness. So, do I believe that the removal of Torah is the restrainer with the Antichrist?

No, not at all, not at all. Nor is it right to think that whenever you see animos or animia in the New Testament, that it means without Torah law. Generally, it's just speaking of lawlessness more broadly, wickedness more broadly. And again, don't even rely on the top lexicons, compiled by the world's top Greek scholars over periods of decades.

Don't rely on that. Just do a word study by going through every occurrence, right? So, if you've got, for example, a Cordon's Bible, which I've got on the screen in front of me, or other Bible software, just do a word. You find the English word, you click on it, it'll show you the Greek word, and then search for it, and look at every single time it occurs. That's how I've done most of my word studies for decades. That's how I launched on my doctoral dissertation theme in the Hebrew root Rafah. I was on my knees with the Hebrew Cordon's open, looking at word usage. Oh, all the articles that I wrote for New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, and for the article I wrote for Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.

Same way, on my knees, or just with the Cordon's open, and then as software came out, we're just looking, okay, and here it's used 300 times, or it's used 48 times, or whatever the number is. Now let's put it in categories. Let's fill in the blank. Let's replace it with an English word.

Let's see what works. So you never have anomia used to translate, in Hebrew, something against Torah, or without Torah. It stands for itself meaning wickedness, lawlessness, more broadly. These are great questions, every one of them. Kevin, thank you for your ministry. It is much appreciated.

My joy, Kevin. In Acts 10, we read of Cornelius and other Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit, and they spoke in tongues. We read about this in other occurrences in Acts as well. The speaking tongues, the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a sign. When I say baptism of the Holy Spirit, I'm referring to what Jesus spoke in Acts 1-8. You receive power, and the Holy Spirit comes on you, right?

Thank you for your time and consideration. So Kevin, you're asking this question as someone who believes in a subsequent baptism of the Spirit, as I do, not dogmatic about it, but that would be a Pentecostal position. That's the moment you're saved or indwelled by the Holy Spirit and baptized by the Spirit into the body of Messiah, the body of Christ, but there is a subsequent empowerment baptism of the Spirit. If you say, no, no, the baptism of the Spirit is the same as salvation. We receive it all at once. Wonderful. Just show me the goods. Show me the power of the Spirit in your life.

I'll rejoice with you. The when is not as important to me as the reality of it, but let's say there is a subsequent baptism in the Spirit. So in Acts 2, they all speak in tongues, in this case foreign languages. In Acts 8, something tangible happens when the apostles, Peter and John, lay hands on the Samaritan believers, but it doesn't say what specifically happened, but everyone knew that the Holy Spirit was given. Acts 10, Cornelius and the Gentile believers with him, they speak in tongues. Then Acts 19, the believers in Ephesus who would only be educated through John's baptism, they speak in tongues and prophesy. So there's prophecy there also. So it seems clear that there is some definite sign, some indication of knowing that someone has been baptized in the Spirit. That's number one. Number two is the fact that when the Holy Spirit comes on people, they speak.

That's very common. The Spirit of the Lord is on me because it's anointing me to preach. The Holy Spirit would come on the prophets and they would speak. So it makes sense that with the giving of the Holy Spirit, there is speaking out.

That makes sense as well. However, all that being said, and as much as it is doctrinal dogma in some Pentecostal denominations, which I respect and honor, I do not believe that speaking in tongues is the sign of the baptism of the Spirit, but the most common sign, the most common sign for the last hundred plus years. But not the only sign. If the Holy Spirit came on someone and they began to prophesy for the first time powerfully and Spirit on them, I wouldn't say, well, what happened to the tongues?

I wouldn't ask that. But I would believe that as they go to pray, they'd be able to pray in tongues thereafter as well. So I see it as the most common sign, the sign that's most expected, but not the only sign. Okay, DJ has a question about Matthew 16, 13 through 20. Again, all questions that I solicited today, they've already been posted some days ago on Facebook, and we're just dealing with Bible passages. So Matthew 16, verse 13, Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi. He asked his disciples, who do people say the Son of Man is? They replied, some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, still others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. All right, so first thing here is this is not so much reincarnation in the Hindu way of thinking of it, but this idea that there could be a prophet of old or someone killed risen from the dead.

Remember what Herod says? This is John the Baptist risen from the dead after he killed him. So that's why some thought he's some prophet risen from the dead, even John.

Obviously, the chronology is a little funny there, but even John. So it's not that they had just a reincarnation view, as much as someone could be raised from the dead again as a prophet. But what about you, he asked, who do you say I am? Simon Peter answered, you're the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Now they had that insight about this from the start, but for Simon to declare it like this, Jesus then says, blessed are you, Simon said of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

To know that you know this, that's by revelation. And I'll tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Now, Catholic exegesis and others would say, you are Peter, and Peter is rock, little rock in Greek, and on this rock, namely on you, Peter, I'll build my church.

I see zero support. With all respect to my Catholic friends and recognizing the brilliant Catholic exegetes over the centuries, I don't see any support for that in the rest of the New Testament that the church has built on Peter. What does the church build on? Well, we all know, one foundation only, Jesus Christ, right? Jesus the Messiah.

We all know that. There's no dispute that the church is built on Jesus himself. Every follower of Jesus would acknowledge that. And Peter, when you get to the book of Revelation, right, so that the gates of the 12 gates of the New Jerusalem have the names of the 12 tribes of Israel, and the 12 foundation stones have the names of the apostles. So all the apostles are part of the foundation stones, and the church is built, Ephesians 2, after building on Jesus, 1 Corinthians 3, Ephesians 2, on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

So the idea that the church is built on the foundation of Peter has no New Testament support. And in Acts 3, he says, hey, why are you looking at me? As if by my own faith or Godness, our own faith or Godness, we've made this man. Well, don't look at Peter, don't look at John, it's the name of Jesus. So what's it saying?

It's just a play on words as we have commonly in the Bible. I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, which rock? The rock of your confession that Jesus is the Messiah. I'll build my church.

So what's the church built on? Jesus being the Messiah. I'll build my church. The gates of Hades will all overcome it. I'll give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Then he orders his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. So when we get over to verse 19, so when I give you, right?

It's plural. I give you the keys of the kingdom. Not Peter, but the church, the body. We have been given spiritual authority. And the best way to understand this is that what God has declared in heaven, we live out on the earth. What God has done, spoken in heaven, we now carry out. So whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. So that understanding, whatever you bind on earth will be already bound in heaven. The other way to understand this is more specifically speaking about legislation and decrees by the church doing the will of God. In other words, as you are in harmony with me, with the authority I've given you, when you excommunicate someone for persistent unrepentant sin, then that is backed by heaven. When you welcome someone back in, that is backed by heaven. When you give a ruling like Acts 15, that the Gentiles are not required to observe the law of Moses, as you're in my spirit doing that with my authority on the earth, that is backed in heaven. The binding and loosing, is it referring to demons there?

No. There are other verses that clearly speak about binding and loosing with reference to Satan, but I don't see the binding and loosing here with that specific reference or primary reference. All right, so a bunch of verses. I don't know what you had questions on in particular, but I tried to pull out what might be the most controversial aspects. Okay, we will be right back and dive into a bunch more of your tremendous questions right here on the line of fire. And can I tell you again from the heart, it is my joy to spend every day with you pouring in so together we can be healthy and thrive and see the glory of God on his way. that have been posted on Facebook for us to answer, so I'm not taking calls. Don't post any new questions.

I won't be able to get through all the ones that were posted almost immediately after I asked for it some days back. Okay, Hina posts Psalm 19, one, the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork. I'm not sure what the question is there, but the Psalm, Psalm 19, has two parts to it. First, how the nature of God, the word of God, is declared through nature. So nature itself declares the glory and splendor and power of God.

Then the second half is about the actual word, the spoken word, that goes forth to declare who God is. Alex, Zechariah 12 10, you King James, and I'll pour down the house of David on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me whom they pierced. The Jewish Tanakh, they have said, and they look on them who you pierced, which changes the whole meaning.

How do we refute their interpretation? So I'm going to read Zechariah 12 10 to you from the New Jewish Publication Society version, all right, and you'll see that it reads very differently than the King James and our English translations. So I'll fill the house of David and the heavens of Jerusalem with the spirit of pity and compassion, and they shall lament to me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a firstborn. I would first point out that within Jewish tradition itself, within the Talmud in Tractate Sukkah, that it cites Zechariah 12 10. There's some homiletical discussion about its meaning, and one of the interpretations is that they're mourning over the death of Messiah son of Joseph, who was killed in the last great battle and then is raised from the dead by Messiah son of David.

And another Jewish interpretation is that it's talking about the evil inclination, which is slain on that day, but there are clear ancient Jewish interpretations that understand that this is speaking about a he or an it, rather than about a them. That's the first thing. Then secondly, I would press in on the verse in kind of a a micro way. So that's the first part, I'll put it in the house of David, and the heavens of Jerusalem, the spirit of pity and compassion, or grace and and supplication, right? V'hibitu Elah, and they will look Elah to me, et asher dakaru, v'safdu alav. So they will look, v'hibitu, they have pierced, dakaru, they will mourn, safdu.

So you have they three times, right? So here's it, the they in the middle is clearly the same as the they at the beginning, and then after that, they will look, they have pierced, they will mourn. So I press in on that level, then I press in on the meaning of et asher. So first I'd look at Jewish tradition, and I'd say hey look, there are Jewish traditional interpretations in the Talmud that recognize this as a he that's being killed, or an it that's being slain, as opposed to they, right?

They have been killed. Secondly, I would I would point in exegetically, I push grammatically, and say that they look, they pierce, they mourn. And thirdly, I would press in on the meaning of et asher, and would indicate, and I do this in volume three of answering Jewish objections to Jesus, I dig into the meaning of this verse, right? And I get into the Hebrew grammar. I would show that et asher, although it can in certain contexts be referring to about, here it is it is it is direct, this et asher, that is the one that was pierced. So looking to me, mourning for me, mourning for him, they coalesce in one because of the divine nature of the Messiah.

That was too technical, for some, I understand that, but hopefully you get the overall thrust of it. Richard, Revelation 3 10, I will also keep you from the hour of trial, from the trial that is to come over the earth, used by tree crib rapture folks, that seems odd, it was specifically for the Philadelphia church, it must have been fulfilled in the past, since the church is now gone. Plus, an hour of trial does not equate with seven years of tribulation, to me that's a very weak pro exegesis and not biblical. Right, I don't believe it refers to a preacher rapture either, and as I'll explain in a show, oh gobbling when I'm in Hawaii, you'll get to hear it. I talk about that verse for those who say that the seven churches in Asia Minor, beginning with Ephesus and ending with Laodicea, the seven churches in Asia Minor are seven church ages, well the last church age would be Laodicea, right, and it's not talking about the church during tribulation, it's talking about an actual church believers, right, who are in a very bad state. It's the church before that Philadelphia that allegedly has this rapture promise, so how does the church before the end of the age get raptured out anyway?

Aside from that, yes, it had to have application to Philadelphia. It had to be something that happened in the ancient world that church in Philadelphia was kept through and spared from, so it already had to have happened, that's one thing. And hour of trial, it could refer to seven years, I mean 1 John 2 says that there are many antichrists already here, that's how we know we're in the last hour, so last hour can be expansive, right? However, the other big problem is that the Greek, I will keep you from, is found only one other time in the entire New Testament, that exact phrase, I will keep you from in Greek, right, so verb and preposition, and that's in John 17 15, where Jesus is praying for his people and says, Father, I am not asking you to take them out of the world, right, I'm not asking for a pre-trib rapture, but that you keep them from the evil one, so even to be kept from, that is in this world, God can keep us, there can be a pandemic, he can keep us from that, there can be famine, he can keep us from that, there can be all kinds of divine wrath poured out, he can keep us preserved from that, so yes, it is a weak argument with all respect to our pre-trib friends.

Yanni, I'm stuck in John's gospel, always digging into it, I was reading this morning John 16 25 last sentence, but I will show you plainly of the father, I believe that connects with verse 28, I came forth from the father come into the world again and again, I leave the world go to the father, do you think that this is referring that through his death and resurrection the father will be seen plainly, thank you for the feedback. Yeah, Yanni can, they're obviously books of the Bible, we'd spend a lifetime in digging and digging and learning and learning, which is great, as long as we keep reading the rest of the scriptures too, so yeah, John was so rich, you go back to John 14, right, because remember this is the same discourse, this is right before Jesus is going to be betrayed and crucified, so John 14, when Jesus says no one comes to the father except through me, Phillips show us the father and that'll be enough for us, because have you been with me so long you don't realize that the father's in me and I'm in the father, that I'm right, he said earlier John 10 30, I and the father are one, he says in John 14, the works I do they're not mine but the father dwelling in me, right, since you've seen me, you've seen the father, so as he now dies and is resurrected and ascends and is glorified, they see the father all the more plainly through that, so part just the way he's speaking, they're starting to see it more clearly, but then and what's about to happen, yes, as the son is exalted they get a greater revelation of the father, because the father is revealed through the son, yeah, so I'd keep digging in that direction, uh Eli, Matthew 5 38 to 42 where it says to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile if someone forces you to, these verses are often used to support pacifism and especially the principle of non-resistance used by many in Anabaptist, Mennonite circles as well as by many who have been influenced by that idea, I would however interpret this passage as saying that we simply shouldn't seek vengeance in people who've wronged us and that we should be hospitable to the people in need, that self-defense as well as being careful who you serve or give things to are not necessarily unbiblical, which interpretation of those verses is correct? Eli, overall I'm with you in my understanding, I should point out though that the early church in many ways was pacifistic and there were teachings post-new testament, but there were teachings that that you could not serve as a soldier if that meant killing other people.

You could serve in other ways to serve and support, but there was a prohibition about against being a soldier. However, the argument of just war, that there are times when a war is just and when the Christian thing to do is to participate more, you can make a very strong argument for that based on other passages and therefore what the allies did to defeat the Nazis was a good thing. When we stop terrorists before they slaughter hundreds of innocent people, that's a good thing. When a police officer sees someone in a mass shooting, they're gunning down children in a playground and that officer is able to take that person out or a sniper is able to take that person out, that's a good thing and a Christian could engage in that because that's a good thing and a righteous thing.

So, I agree with you there. If you look in Matthew 5, if someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. So, if I come with my right hand, right-handedness is presumed, if I come with my right hand and I slap you, I'm going to slap you on the left cheek. However, if I use a backhanded slap, that's the right cheek and under developing Jewish law, we know it in writing a couple centuries later that you were entitled to a double fine, double compensation if someone gave you a backhanded slap in public because that was doubly shameful.

You were entitled to double compensation. Even that, that public humiliation, because remember it's in the context of eye for eye, tooth for tooth. So, law, lex talianos, so the law of retribution. So, if someone takes your eye, you can take their eye under the law or their eye would be taken under the law.

I mean, it's been done in Iran. A man blinds a woman with acid. She has the right to have him blind it with acid as well. So, in any case, Jesus is saying, no, that the personal retaliation, don't do it.

Publicly humiliate it, turn the other cheek. As for being forced to carry someone's weapon, yeah, they had to do it under Roman law and he said, comply and go above and beyond it, right? That is unrelated to self-defense, right? If someone breaks into your home, some crazed person and they're trying to attack and kill your children and you've got a baseball bat and can club them over the head or you're trained in martial arts and you can wrestle that person to the grounds of doom.

If they fight, you use the force you need to stop them. That's a good thing. That's a good thing. So, it's different than what Jesus is talking about. Your overall points, yes, I agree with.

Socratic mud. Please give a thorough explanation of Luke 16, dishonest manager, parable, specifically verse 8, the master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness for the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. It is probably the most unusual teaching of Jesus in the New Testament because it seems to be that Jesus is being sympathetic with someone who is being dishonest and that he is echoing the words of the man's manager who commends him for his shrewdness even though he was being dishonest.

So, short answer and then a little more detail on the other side of the break. The short answer is that Jesus is giving an illustration about how the world can be worldly wise and is often wiser with money than God's people and therefore learning from this we should use divine wisdom with money for eternal purposes. In other words, if this man could use earthly wisdom to get a lot of houses that would welcome him because he gave him a good deal, he cut the bill and gave him a good deal even though it hurt the guy that was firing him, well now he's going to be accepted in a lot of places.

Let's use the earthly resources that we have so that eternally we'll have a whole lot of homes to go to because people will welcome us in because of how we use money to bring them into the kingdom, preaching of the gospel, winning of the loss. All right, we'll be right back. 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. Thanks friends for joining us on The Line of Fire.

We've got one more segment. So Socratic Mind, I would first say, and give me a more expanded answer to the parable of the dishonest manager in Luke 16, that there are other applications where we're not to go straight from one point to the next. The point here is not that Jesus wants us to be honest. Just like in Luke 18, the woman who pleads with the judge, Jesus is giving a parable to help us to always pray and not cave in, not faint. And the judge doesn't fear God, he doesn't care about man, but this widow wears him out.

Well, that's not a picture of the father, right? It's an exhortation for us to pray, and just like she wore out the judge, we should give God no rest and keep asking until we get the answer. Well, it's not to say that we can wear out God. It's not to say that God is like this unjust judge.

No, he's perfect in righteousness and full of mercy and compassion, and he's moved by our cries. It's to make a point. So this also is to make a point, not to commend dishonesty. And then what's the application? That's the big point.

What's the application? If you're faithful and little, God will entrust you with much. If you're faithful with earthly riches, God will entrust you with spiritual riches. If you're faithful with that which belongs to somebody else, God will give you something of your own. So it's a striking parable, gets our attention, says how much more should we be wise in our use of earthly resources so as to get eternal homes in heaven with all those through our shrewd, biblically shrewd use of finances to extend the gospel.

That's how I understand it, sir. Jonathan, what is the unknown tongue in 1 Corinthians 14 to? Is that a reference to speaking in tongues when praying to God? Yes, Paul does say, 1 Corinthians 13, if I speak in the tongue of men and angels but I don't have love, it's no good. Just it's like bong, bong, just a sounding gong. So they're just a clash of symbols. Is he talking about a heavenly tongue here?

Could be. It could just be a matter of speech if I speak in heavenly tongues, earthly tongues in 1 Corinthians 13, or tongues that we speak are heavenly, are the language of angels, right? Either way, in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is talking about the use of tongues. You say, I went to this Pentecostal church.

They're all shouting in tongues. It couldn't be God. No, it doesn't mean it wasn't God. It just means it was out of order. Paul never said it wasn't God. It says it's out of order because people coming in from the outside will think you're crazy.

What is this? The thing is just gibberish. That's what they're going to think.

And that's what a lot of people do think. That's just gibberish. Well, Paul said that's what they're going to think of your tongues, too, if they come in and don't know what's going on, right? But it's like any other foreign language, right? So, if I'm speaking in Hebrew to all of you, unless I translate, unless you're an Israeli, it doesn't do any good.

Or if you're all passionate, you get on the air, you want to share a testimony with me, and you speak Ukrainian, you speak Spanish, you're excited, but it's not helping me, and it's not helping listeners that don't know those languages. So, in this case, nobody understands tongues. You have to have a gift of interpretation. And that's why Paul says our own minds don't understand.

No one understands. But our spirits understand because our spirits are understanding this spiritually. We are edified spiritually. We're praying mysteries in our spirit to God. But if I did that publicly right now, here, I could speak in tongues the last eight minutes of this broadcast, and I'd be edified, and no one else would be edified, and it would be nonsense to, what's going on here?

What happened to this show, right? It would be out of order, and edifying, and wrong. But I'd get built up. The whole thing is, tongues is meant to be in public practical. In private, it's practical by edifying ourselves. And I have prayed days, hours, and hours, and hours praying in tongues. And with that, my mind and heart start to commune with God more deeply, and then I get insight into how to pray, and it's beautiful and wonderful.

But I've been on the air 14 plus years. You've never heard me speak in tongues on the air because this is not the place for it, all right? So yes, the unknown tongue would be the tongue of our prayer to God. Matthew. I may have a hard time seeing how Matthew's account of Jesus and his family going to Egypt can fit into Luke's account of Jesus' life, but it just looks like some kind of contradiction here. How should we understand this?

As always, thank you, Dr. Brown. Hey, Matthew, all I can do is speak here in broad strokes to say that all we need is more details, and then it all falls into place. And that the idea of two traditions circulating that early, with that much authority, without someone finding a need to reconcile the contradictions, or the early church leaders constantly trying to figure it out, would mean that the closer you were to it, the less contradictions there were. So I'm not going to give an in-depth academic explanation of how it could fit, except to say very simply, and then you can dig in.

I'm sure you've studied, but you can dig in to the historical and exegetical commentaries that are going to try to piece together every possible discrepancy or apparent discrepancy. But let me just say this. I don't know if you've ever sat with a married couple, or with two people who are having deep differences, and sit with them separately, and then bring them in a room together. But Nancy and I have done it over the years, especially many years back. And we might meet with the husband once, right? And he shares a story, and we're like, we had no idea the marriage was like that. Boy, she seems like a real wretch, nasty, and selfish. Yikes.

And he seems like a really good guy. And then you get the wife in, you know, next week, or next day, or even, you know, one leaves the room, the other comes in. She tells her story. It's like, okay, one of them is lying, because she's a sweetheart.

She's wonderful. And our husband is the selfish wretch. And we sit. It's like, okay, let's try to figure out a scenario where there's truth to both accounts. It's like, no, it's either or.

They don't fit. This is with people in the room that you're sitting with, present tense, not events from 2,000 years ago, where we have just a little detail here, a little detail there. And then they both talk. It's like, oh, oh, okay, I see your opponent. Then it starts to make sense.

So there are plenty of things that on surface look contradictory or some even irreconcilable. And just a little more information like, oh, okay, all clear, all clear. Hey, don't want to forget to let you know about our sponsor, Trivita, that is helping us spread this crucial message around the nation on the line of fire. When you call this number 800-771-5584, 800-771-5584, tell them Dr. Brown sent you. Ask, as it's still possible, to get a free bottle of Nopalaya. Ask about that.

It deals with chronic inflammation, arthritic issues, other inflammations in your body over a period of months. The results, people are telling us just spectacular. I've seen good results in a short period of time as well. So make sure to ask about that. Or just go ahead and order what you want. Remember, 100%, 100% of your first order goes to support the line of fire spreading around the nation. That's all it goes for.

It doesn't go anywhere else. And then ongoing, as you order in the future, Trivita will more than tithe back to the line of fire broadcast. Or go to trivita.com and use the code BROWN. It's in my name, capital B, R-O-W-N, BROWN25 to get a 25% discount on everything you order. Take advantage of it. Do it.

Go for it. All right, let's see. Dave, why does Jesus say in Matthew 11 14 that John the Baptist is Elijah, and in John 1 21, John the Baptist says he's not Elijah. Jesus does say that Elijah is still to come, and you look at all the gospel accounts, but that John came in the spirit and power of Elijah. In other words, he's not Elijah incarnate, and it could well be that Elijah himself will show up on the earth again at the end of the world.

It could be. There's a Jewish expectation in that way. If not Elijah himself, then another like John the Baptist, or perhaps a whole company in the spirit and power of Elijah. So he was not literally Elijah, but he came in the spirit and power of Elijah. And Jesus said if you recognize that, then you'll see that in that sense he already came, although there's still a future role for Elijah.

Kenneth asked about Psalm 82. What is the assembly of God? So God is depicted in Scripture as sitting over all the gods, right? He is the only true God. All the others are created beings that are worshiped by other people, which are ultimately angelic beings.

That's the only other part of his creation, or demonic spirits, right? So in other words, God didn't create other gods. There's only one God, true God, and then these others are so-called gods. So it's God sitting over the heavenly assembly, over all of the other created powers, vying for power in the universe, and then it has its application with Israel as being his judges, playing a godlike role on the earth, that he's rebuking the godless judges there. But if you wanted to go to a context behind the scene, it would have been that all these angelic beings vying for power as gods, gods are going to all die like men, because, you know, you have usurped a power and authority that is not yours. So it's the heavenly assembly, God sitting over all the powers of the universe. Look at 1 Kings 22 for a picture like that, or Job chapter 1. But there's only one God, true God. All the others will die like men, and then with application on the earth to Israel, the judges were called Elohim, also gods, because they had that authority, and if they do not carry out things righteously in God's name, you're like everybody else.

He's going to die like mere mortals. And Dale, what is the meaning of Exodus 4, 24, and 25? Why was that done? So with regard to Moses having to circumcise his son, remember the one covenant requirement for the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was circumcision. It wasn't Sabbath observance or the Torah observance, it was circumcision, right? And Moses is about to go into Egypt and tell Pharaoh, B'Nee, B'Chor, Israel, Israel is my son and my firstborn.

Let my son go, or I'll kill your son. And his own son, Moses' own son, had not been circumcised. Moses was negligent there.

So there was no reason to negligent there. So there was blood guilt on his part. His child should have been cut off from Israel because of that, from the descent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because of that. And therefore, it says God sought to come.

He wasn't actually going to kill him. But this is a wake-up call. You're going to come under judgment. You need to circumcise your child. And the wife, of course, go ahead and do it.

Maybe she's the one who stopped him in the first place. But it's a fascinating portion of scripture. God bless. Have an awesome weekend. Another program powered by the Truth Network.