Dr. Brown Answers All Your Questions

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

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. It is live. What's today?

December 3rd. Is that right? So we are live right now ready to take your calls. 866-348-7884. As we do on Friday, any question on any subject that relates in any way to what we talk about on the line of fire, any guest has talked about, or anything I write about, by all means give us a call. Friend, foe, seeker, 866-348-7884.

That is the number to call. A couple important things I want to share with you and then we're going to go right to your calls. At this time of the year we will email and let you know about special projects we're working on and things that would help us at the end of the year. Early next year you're going to see those watching a brand new studio. It's going to give us many, many improvements and enhancements and even when interviewing a guest you'll be able to to see them live if they're with us in studio. We've got a bunch of new things we're implementing. It is a year where we plan to do massive expansion of the line of fire broadcast across America. So if we've been a blessing to you, if we've helped you, if we've edified you, if we've been for you a voice of moral sanity and spiritual clarity, then help us help others.

Would you do that? If you could help us with a one-time year-end gift or become a monthly supporter, whichever is easier or better for you, that would be a great blessing to us at the end of the year. So please take a moment, go to our website. If you don't get my emails, by all means do that first. Go to AskDr.

Brown, askdrbrown.org and sign up for our emails. You'll be blessed with the content we send you and we'll keep you informed on top of things. And then click on donate your year-end gift would be a great blessing.

Of course it's tax deductible. So if we've poured into you, help us pour into others by investing in the line of fire this year. So askdrbrown.org. Click on donate. If you're watching on Facebook or YouTube, you can click right there. Any amount, large or small, just click on donate on Facebook or on YouTube. The bottom of the chat box is a dollar sign.

You can click on that. So thank you. All of you who give regularly, pray for us regularly, thank you. You are the backbone of what we do.

Those that can help with a special gift, especially if we've been a blessing to you these many years or even recently. You're a new listener, a new viewer, by all means we thank you and appreciate your help and support. All right, over to the phones.

Let's go to Eugene in Fort Mill, Oklahoma. Welcome to the line of fire. Good afternoon, Dr. Brown. It's been quite some time. How are you? Doing well, thank you.

Thank you. Yes sir, and I just have to make it clear that me asking this question is of no disrespect to Calvinists, and I know many faithful brothers and sisters who subscribe to such theology, and you know, just know my question is coming out of a place of concern, and just like sincere respect and love. But I've never subscribed to the doctrine, but listening to a lot of Reformed teachers, I kind of found myself subconsciously thinking that way, and I guess reading Scripture through that lens. And something that happened for me personally is that my relationship with God became very confusing, and to be frank, the intimacy felt superficial, because I couldn't really make sense of God's love anymore. I couldn't make sense of the passages of him saying that he desires for men to be saved if he's the one who essentially jams them to hell from birth, that they were meant to be damned to hell for his glory. And I didn't really understand how to make sense of him saying it in a sense, congratulations, or well done, you know, you're getting a faithful servant, when I was basically predestined to be saved. I didn't really make sense of it in my prayer life. My life, especially my life of worship, was hit in a really bad way because of it. And I'm just wondering, what do you think I could maybe do, or anyone who has a similar experience with any type of theology that really seems to tarnish the glory or the love aspect of God?

What can I kind of do to get back into a place of intimacy? And I guess just a side question, what do you think might be some of the dangers that Calvinism may have for a Christian who subscribes to it? And again, I ask that respectfully. I know some people can make sense of it. I just wasn't able to do it, and it didn't make sense to me at all.

Sure. So my friend, Dr. White, if you're riding your bike now, hold on tight to your handles and keep your focus on the road, as we've debated Calvinism over the years. Obviously, any doctrine that has, to whatever degree it has error in it, can lead us into error. Or any doctrine emphasized in a wrong way could lead us into error. So let's just say in general, without even speaking to which is true more fully or not, it could easily be a fault of Calvinism to have the mindset, what's the use of doing anything if God already knows the future and has already predetermined it, and those who are going to be saved are saved, those who are going to be lost are lost. You say, well, God's ordained your prayers and your evangelism to make a difference. You say, yeah, but he's going to do what he's going to do.

He's going to do it anyway. You can easily fall into a place of complacency. You can fall into a place of lack of intimacy because it's more just this sovereign king who does as he will. On the other hand, you can be an Arminian and feel like the weight of the whole world is on you.

Like, how can I sleep at night when they're lost people? And if I don't witness to them, they're going to hell. And it's all up to me, and you don't have a sense of God being king or ruling or reigning. So there are problems that can arise from different theologies. But what you're talking about in terms of Calvinism can easily happen.

I know for me, when I was a Calvinist from 77 to 82, that I remember the day I was sitting in my study, and I was just digging into Hebrew Semitic studies in grad school. And I thought to myself, well, maybe I should take some time and just go out and share the Gospel, look for some folks in the streets or go down the neighborhood, look for some people to talk to. And the thought hit me, if they're ordained to salvation, they're going to be saved whether I do it or not. I thought, well, I'd lose my reward.

I thought, well, I'd rather study right now. Now, it was a carnal thought, right? And there are plenty of Calvinists that would rebuke that thought, and if they felt prompted to witness, would do it. But I remember saying, wow, I'm in a bad place right now. That's not a healthy attitude to have.

So it's certainly something that can happen. So what you have to do is, I would read through the Bible and write down all of the things that God expresses, His grief over human sin, His desire for human repentance, His joy over His people honoring Him and serving Him. And I would pray, and I would really have heart-to-heart talks with the Lord, talks with the Lord that would help me to see your heart and understand your heart. I'd read through the gospels over and over, remembering when you see Jesus, you've seen the Father, that He is the will of God in action, that He is revealing the character and nature of the Father to us.

He is the express representation. And you see His heart, you see His desire, you see the pain that He carried, the joy that He experienced in real time in this world. And that is an expression of the heart of God.

And ask Him to share His heart with you. And doing it, knowing that He's God, knowing that He's King, knowing that He's the ruler of the universe, but also knowing that He set things in motion, giving us certain freedoms and certain choices to make. And if we choose rightly, He's pleased.

If we choose wrongly, He's grieved. And that He does desire for people to be saved. And not everything that He desires will come to pass because He ordained that we would have choices.

So that was His larger plan. And in the midst of it, He's working out His will, what human beings do, but He's not ordering all of our decisions. He's not ordering everything that happens in the world. And therefore there are things He says, I had nothing to do with this. I never sent that person. I never spoke through them.

I had nothing to do with this. What you're doing is completely contrary to everything I planned for you. So those truths come into our heart. You get that a lot in the prophetic books. And you renew your mind according to the Word of God, which reflects the character of God. You might say, I'm a Calvinist and I feel the same way about God, but I believe what I believe.

I'm not arguing about it right now. I'm responding to this question. And I'm saying it's important that we see God's hope. We take it at face value. That when He says He's grieved, we believe it. That when He says He rejoices, we believe it.

That when He says He desires something, we believe it. And then ask God, Lord, help me to renew my heart and mind to Your truth. Hey, thank you for the call. Much appreciated. 866-3-4-TRUTH. Let's go to Derek in Hawaii. Welcome to the line of fire.

Hey, Dr. Brown. So my question is regarding a scripture that I struggle with, and that's in Zechariah 8, verse 23. And my question is, if it is the Christian that has the gospel message and the gospel of peace, and the Christian that has a new and better covenant, and currently there's a temporal veil over the eyes of the Jews right now, why would the nations go to the Jew in Zechariah 8, 23, stating, we heard God is with you, and you have truth? So I struggle with that, and I ponder that, one, it would seem either that the Jew would be considered the saint, and that's why I prefaced the question with the person that takes these questions, and said replacement theology would seem appropriate if it was the Jew inwardly. It is so contrary, it is so 100% contrary to the context of Zechariah. It is so contrary to that you can look at that person and know that they reduce either how they're dressing or whatever.

But it's very simple. Romans 11 makes clear that the Jewish people turning to the Lord will bring life from the dead, will bring the healing of the world. So the Jewish people play a key role in bringing light to the nations. In the millennial kingdom, it seems that the Jewish people will be educating the world about who the Messiah is. And I've even experienced this special favor around the world as a Jewish believer, that I've lived this out on a certain level as a Jewish believer. But it's absolutely talking about at the end of the age as Jewish people turn to the Messiah, that they will have a special role. Robert Murray M'Cheyne in the 1800s in Scotland felt that's a key role, well we must bring the gospel to the Jewish people first, because they have a key role in educating the rest of the world. And even beyond that, in the millennial kingdom, if we look at it as a prophecy of that, Israel will be a priestly nation in the midst of the nations of the world.

So it is a role that remains for the Jew, and that's why Jewish evangelism remains a priority in God's sight. Hey, thank you for the question. 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, friends, for joining us on The Line of Fire. You've got questions, we've got answers, 866-34-TRUTH.

Let us go to Josh in England. Welcome to The Line of Fire. Hey, Dr. Brown. I called you several weeks ago, and I had a number of questions regarding Isaiah 714. I remember the call.

Yeah, I remember the call. I only—as I said, I had a number of issues with the verse, and I only managed to ask a couple of questions, but today my question is different about this verse. And it's a bit technical, the question, so please bear with me. I'm going to explain a discrepancy that I see, and some Hebrew grammatical technicality, and then I will explain the actual objection that stems from this technicality. So Matthew 1 22, which is quoting Isaiah, says, All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet. So Matthew is now quoting Isaiah, Behold, the virgin shall conceive—or the young woman—shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. However, Isaiah says, ve-karat sh'mo Immanuel, meaning she will call his name Immanuel. So the word ve-karat, as you know, it happens to be in the singular feminine third person, referring to Alma, or the young woman, can also be read ve-karata, depending on the vowelization, that is singular masculine second person. So as if Isaiah is addressing King Ahaz.

So I don't have a problem with the two variants. However, Matthew is saying they will call his name Immanuel. That's plural third person verb. And so Matthew is not quoting the Septuagint in this case. You know, sometimes we figure out why it's different from the Hebrew, it's because the New Testament writers are quoting the Septuagint, but Matthew is not, because the Septuagint is using the second Hebrew variation, using the Greek verb kalesis, which is you will call, talking to Ahaz. Now, that I explained this technical discrepancy, the actual objection, this is not my objection, it's just bothering me a lot. The objection here is that Matthew deliberately misquoted the Old Testament because if he had quoted the second person, ve-karata or ve-karat, that she will call him or you will call him, it would indicate that the actual name given to the child was Immanuel, but since the child was actually named Yeshua, Matthew had to deal with this saying that they will call him to sound like it's going to be the Christians in the general sense, as a title, not in a literal sense.

So how would you approach this discrepancy? Why Matthew did not use the actual Hebrew, or at least the Septuagint, which says you will call his name Immanuel? Yeah, so you actually have a number of different readings, even in Masoretic traditions, so the most common is karat, as you said, she will call. There's also tradition karatah, so you will call, as you said. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, there's another tradition, which is ve-karah, and one will call, which is the exact same thing as they will call. It's when you have third person singular that's just indefinite and someone that's the same as saying it passively and it will be called or they will call, it's just another way of saying it, so that could be another tradition that was excellent. We know it's found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm looking at it right here in front of me.

So I did check the Dead Sea Scrolls, I have logos and I looked it up, and my problem with this is that, first of all, it's singular, third person, and it doesn't make sense. It sounds like it is missing a tav at the end. No, no, it's not. No, no, no, that's the point I'm making.

It's not at all. Ve-karah means one will call or he will be called. It's the exact same thing as saying, you could say it and one will call or it will be called or they will call. It is an indefinite way of saying something. It's not uncommon in Hebrew at all to use that.

So all that to say is that that seems to be the least significant part because you have it in so many different ways. I would say if Matthew was trying to make a point specifically that he would have drawn attention to she will call because it's not typically the mother that would be naming the child anyway, but if it says and she will call, that would have emphasized the role of the woman even more and that she recognized him as being God with us because the whole point he understands, he fully understands that the child was not actually given that name Immanuel, but what was Solomon's name at birth according to the Bible? Yedidiah. Exactly. Has he ever called that anywhere in the Bible?

No, right? But it meant he was beloved by the Lord and then his name was Solomon. So the whole point that he is Immanuel in the highest sense of the word, that's part of what Matthew is emphasizing.

This variant here is, right, this variant here is really totally insignificant. I see. So my problem is not whether he was called Immanuel. I don't have a problem. Right, right. No, no, I understand. I'm saying to Matthew... ... names, I don't have a problem with that, but Matthew seems not to have recognized that, oh, somebody can have two names, no problem, but it seems like he wanted to make sure that the prophecy didn't have that problem where, well, he wasn't called Immanuel by the brothers.

No, I'm saying it's the opposite. That would have been perfect if she calls his name Immanuel. His actual name is Yeshua, but just as Shlomo was Yedidiah, he's Immanuel. That would have been perfectly that the mother called him that because she recognized God with us, that fits into it perfectly. You know, and look, there are other Greek traditions, we don't have access to all of them because, you know, Matthew is quoting Septuagint, but the earliest manuscripts of Septuagint we have are for the most part, you know, post New Testament as well. So, but my point is that you have the vikara in Hebrew is virtually identical to and they will call.

It is an indefinite singular, and one will call, which many will even translate passively, and his name will be called. So it's really, the other things we talked about I would say were more substantive. This is really a much lesser one, and it's an objection where someone is not, they're reading things in that aren't actually there.

They're creating a problem that's not there. So you think that Matthew was quoting the variant found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? That's what he was referring to. Or there was a there was a variant Greek tradition.

That's certainly, yeah, yeah. Which we don't have. Which we don't have, but we do have, but we do have, you know, a very, and we don't know how many other Hebrew traditions there were that we don't have from the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the fact that you have different readings even in Masoretic texts as well as Dead Sea Scrolls as well as Septuagint, so that it's no surprise whatsoever. That, like I said, that to me is the least significant part of this, and that's a part of this, and that's why historically it hasn't been a major Jewish objection that's raised over this in candor.

So I would just not, and I've looked at it, read my Isaiah commentary and focusing on this very intensely, I looked at it and I really didn't think it was it was worthy of much concern or, you know, to get in too deeply just because we have so many variants just on that on that one part of it. I see. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir, and keep the questions coming. I really appreciate them.

866-348-7884. Let's go over to Justin in Dallas, Georgia. Welcome to the line of fire. Can you hear me?

I can hear you. So I had a question, two questions, about two different laws in the Old Testament. So the first one is Numbers 31, when the children of Israel are essentially retaliating against the Midianites for God is commanding that for the sin that they cause them to commit. And anyways, and they bring back the women, and some of the women are given to the Levites as tribute, but then some of them are offered, it appears in verse 28, 29 as a heed offering to God. So my question is, was this like a human sacrifice or what happened with the ones that weren't giving these tributes to the Levites? No, no, certainly not human sacrifice, and that's being misread there. So Numbers 31, beginning in verse 28. Yeah, in levy for the Lord, a tribute from the men of war who went out to battle one out of 500 of the people of the oxen of the donkeys and the fox, take it from half, give it to the priests as a contribution to the Lord. This is not talking about the women here, right? It's dealing with the plunder in the previous verses.

Divide the plunder into two parts between the warriors, right? So I'm not sure where you'd get that had anything to do with the women there. Starting verse 25, it's about the plunder. It talks about it in another spot as well. No, not women giving up as an offering.

No, so that's quite explicit. Numbers 31, 25. Right, in levy for the Lord, a tribute from the men of war who went out to battle one out of 500 of the people of the oxen of the donkeys of the fox, take it from their half, give it to the priest as a contribution to the Lord. So it's talking about in any, and from the people of Israel, half he shall take. So it's dividing up from the people who went out to war and those who didn't.

A certain amount you're taking from each proportionally. But there's nothing about women being offered up. Yeah, I don't know where you're seeing women here. I knew, well, so part of it, and forgive me, I don't have the other portion of the passage on hand, but it talks about giving a portion of the people that were taken back to the Levi's as tribute. But I thought that they were also giving another portion for the heave offering, so I could be mistaken on that.

Yeah, no, that's certainly not what's being spoken of there. Another question was Leviticus 15, 18. My question about that is the way it reads, if you were... Hey, tell you what, Justin, stay right there.

We got a break coming up, so we'll be ready to look at Leviticus 15, 18 on the other side of the break. Also, 45 minutes from now, 45 minutes of 4.15 Eastern Time, we're going to be back on YouTube. So it's our YouTube channel, Ask Dr. Brown, A.S.K., D.R.

Brown on YouTube. We'll be doing our exclusive weekly Q&A chat. So if you can't get through now or you're unable to call in any case, we'll be continuing to take your questions.

45 minutes from now on YouTube. We'll be right back. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get into The Line of Fire now by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us on The Line of Fire. You've got questions. We've got answers.

866-34-TRUTH. Be sure to check out my latest articles and videos over at AskDrBrown.org. We're here to equip you, strengthen you, put material in your hands so that you've got solid answers so that you can help and equip others and be strengthened in every way in your walk with the Lord. So let us be a blessing to you. Make sure you visit AskDrBrown.org.

Over to Justin in Dallas, Georgia. Hey, Justin, one thing about the passage in numbers, which does not get a lot of commentary. When you were asking about the women, that's the thing I was pushing back saying, where were you getting that from? But your more specific question where it says out of the plunder, be it people, be it cattle, and they'd be given over to Eliezer, to the priests, to the Levites, then the only thing you could read from that is it's after a service, a temple servant, or rather someone to help them or serve them. It's not an offering that would be given up.

In other words, if they got an animal, that would be for their benefit. So it's not that the human being would be offered up to the Lord, but rather this would be an offering for the priests or Levites, so some servant of some kind. But the text doesn't tell us anything beyond that.

It's unusual in that respect, but certainly not to be sacrificed to God. Anyway, so your other question on Leviticus 15. So my second question will be quick, but I did find the other portion of the passage in Numbers 31, verse 40 and 41. It says, "...and the persons were sixteen thousand, of which Yahweh's tribute was thirty and two persons."

So Yahweh's tribute of that was thirty-two persons, and Moses gave the tribute, which was Yahweh's heave offering, and Eliezer and the priests, as Yahweh commanded Moses. Right, right. Exactly. But first, it wasn't focused on the women. That was the first thing that threw me. And second, yeah, so the offering was something not given to the priests for the service of God, so not that they would take these human beings and now sacrifice them on the altar.

But it's a good question to ask. It could be misread like that, but it's certainly not the intent. Well, the reason it was confusing to me was because there's another portion in the passage where it seems to be talking about a second group of people who were given to the Levites, but these were of the children of Israel.

Well, the portion was divided up based on how many went out to battle, how many didn't, etc., one in fifty, one in five hundred. The other thing is, you know, you have earlier where the Levites, earlier in numbers, the Levites are given as a wave offering, and this is in the service of the people, so people can be spoken of in that way but not actually sacrificed. Okay, Leviticus 15, go ahead. Leviticus 15, 18, my question was, the way it reads, if the husband and wife are, you know, intimate together daily, would that make them always unclean, the way it reads?

Yes, through the day. In other words, it's not sin, but it was a cleanliness issue. Yes, so if they were intimate in the evening, then they'd bathe in the morning and they'd be unclean until evening. Right. Okay, so I would, I mean, would that be something that I guess they would have to abstain from for the week or two weeks of unleavened bread then?

For what period of time? For the unleavened bread, because they're, you know, they're supposed to be clean during that period to partake? No, that wouldn't be, they could, yeah, it's interesting to press that because that was not considered a ritual uncleanness that would disqualify someone from participating. In other words, during the Passover, it's not taught in Judaism that there can be no sexual relations and even in Judaism, it's considered that if a couple has relations on the Sabbath, that that's the holiest day and, you know, children conceived at that time can be especially holy.

I mean, this is not in the Bible. These are just Jewish traditions. No, it's a ritual purity as opposed to something that would disqualify one from partaking in the Passover. Now that being said, I've never actually looked into Jewish law in this regard as far as what is actually taught, you know, where a line is drawn in Passover. So these are actually excellent questions that don't normally come up, but the answer would be no, that they would not have to abstain through all of Passover in order to be able to partake of it as if it was some other type of ritual uncleanness, like having touched a dead body or something like that. Now you could say, it could be pressed, that so you're unclean till evening, so then you eat the unleavened bread in the evening, and then if you had sexual relations after that, then you don't eat it until that next evening after your purification.

That could be a legalistic argument that one can hold to. Hey, thanks for the call. 866-34-TRUTH.

We go over to Frank in Williamsburg, Pennsylvania. Welcome to the line of fire. Yes sir, thank you for taking my call.

You're welcome. My question is, I had watched a video from a Christian apologist named Inspiring Philosophy, and he was doing a commentary or a general information thing on Genesis, the beginning of Genesis, and he had mentioned in the video that the ages of the patriarchs, Adam and Eve and Lamech and Methuselah and all those guys, of living 800-900 years, that wasn't supposed to be taken literally, rather than it was their custom of the ancient Near East and their culture to have those numbers symbolically. Apparently other pagan nations in the ancient Near East used those numbers in a symbolic way rather than a literal way. And I thought I would call you and get your opinion on if you think it's literal, should we take those numbers as literal or symbolical? I take them literally. However, the argument that's being made is an intelligent argument.

In other words, it's not just special pleading. The Sumerian king list and things like this, you have the ancient, the further back you go, living thousands and thousands of years, much longer than the patriarchs. If you look at the list in Genesis 5, for example, how old the person was when they first had children or when the first name children are mentioned, the name sons, and then how long they lived, and you look at them, they break down, the numbers are very interesting.

It's either something that seven divides into it, ends with a zero, five, whatever, just like a few different options. And people said, okay, if you look at that, the chances of that happening are so infinitesimal that the patterns repeat and things like that. So based on that, others have said there's clear symbolism going on. And we know in the ancient traditions that that's how things were recorded. The other response would be, well, if they're trying to record a literal date, how else would they do it other than what they did?

A, and B, maybe these other documents point to these long, long ages because there were longer lifespans before the flood and whatever reasons they decrease after the flood. So I take them literally, but an argument can be made that questions this. Let me just mention a book to you that gets into a lot of these issues here. And let me just see, I've got part of the name in my head, so I want to make sure I get the full right name here because all this will be laid out. Okay, where is it? Here we go. It is by Ben Stanhope, Misinterpreting Genesis, How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible. Ben Stanhope, Misinterpreting Genesis, How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible. So you may disagree with his conclusions, but he'll give you very strong arguments in terms of how we should translate Genesis 1-1 in terms of the first chapter not being laid out in a scientific way or historical way, but rather a thematic way to present spiritual theological truths parallel to the building of the tabernacle and the building of the temple, and then reading the genealogies differently. Others look at many other questions in the Old Testament, for example, high numbers, that you'll often have battles and a hundred thousand people die here or four hundred thousand here, and you think that it's not possible based on how many people lived at that time, but you see the numbers consistent.

Was there some coding? Was there something that went on that we don't know about that the authors were conveying and they were doing it consistently, but it doesn't compute for us? Those are questions to ask. Scholars ask these questions, but I personally read them literally myself.

That's how I understand them, but arguments can be made to question it, and this book you'll find a lot of those arguments raised in an intelligent way, and then you can sort it out for yourself. All right, sir. Thank you so much.

You are very welcome. 866-348-7884. By the way, it's not a miracle. Every so often it happens on a Friday, then we'll get a couple lines open, so we actually have two lines open, and a good time for you to call is right now if you've been trying to get through, and it's been hard, and I'll probably be able to get to your calls before we're done here. All right, let us go over to Carl in British Columbia in Canada. Welcome to the line of fire.

Hey, thank you, Dr. Brown. I have a question about Greek translation. Can I give you that? Sure. Okay, so the word that I have a problem with is sorcery in the Greek, and is it okay? I'll just give you a little breakdown.

You tell me where you think I'm wrong about this. Yeah, yeah, sure. Okay, so basically there's three words that are translated into sorcery, Magos I'm not really interested in, and the other two are Strong's Concordance 5333 and 5331. 5331 is pharmacia, and 5333 is pharmacos.

Now, we know what pharmacos is. It has a history in Greek. It's part of the Greek ancient religion which delved in human sacrifice, okay? But if we look at the definition of it, it gives the definition as sorcery. Now, I have a problem with that, because sorcery, that word comes into the English language around the 12th, 13th century. It comes from a French word.

What was it? Sorceria. And the Latin derivatives have completely different meanings. So what I'm seeing is a big gap between that word and the definition of sorcery, okay? But I don't want to focus on that word, but I'm just saying that I see a problem there. The word that I want to focus on is 5331, which is pharmacia.

Now, when I talk about the other word being vague, this one is really clear. The word pharmacia comes from the word pharmacont, drugs, or medicines. Now, that word translates into the Latin as pharmacia, or pharmacy. It went into the old French with an F, went into the old French with an F, pharmacia, into our modern-day pharmacy. Now, if we look at the definitions of it, it's very straightforward.

The definitions of that was A, to administer drugs, to administer medicines. All right, so yeah, let me just jump in, because we got a break. But I can tell you where your methodology is off, all right? So stay right here, and we will come back. And I appreciate the research you've done, but I'll tell you where the methodology is off. By calling 866-34-TRUTH, here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us on The Line of Fire. 866-34-TRUTH is the number to call.

So Carl, let me just jump in, then we can interact, okay? What's really important when looking at a particular word is not just to see its history and etymology, which I focused on personally. My doctoral dissertation focused on that with one Hebrew word. But above all, you have to see its usage in contemporary documents, right?

That's going to be the key thing, the number one thing. So if I want to understand pharmacia, so I'm going through the Septuagint, I'm starting there, and I'm looking to see how it's used there, and what Hebrew words it's translating. And then from there, I'm going throughout the rest of the New Testament to see if I have that word that's used, and then I'm looking at documents, other documents in Koine Greek from that time, I'm looking at other Greek writings from that time. So what you do see is on the one hand, there is a use of pharmacia for use of drugs, and then as you keep looking, you see it has to do with casting spells and magic and sorcery. And it's used, even during the break, I was checking some of the usage in the Septuagint, where it's used to translate secret arts. When the Pharos magicians are trying to conjure things up using their secret arts, that sorcery is used there.

And it's used quite frequently, in fact. So if you look at the major lexicons, if you start with the Art Gingrich lexicon, Bower, et cetera, you'll see the very first listing is sorcery magic, and then it gives from ancient documents and then Old Testament one, two, three, four, five, then Apocrypha, right through pseudographical writings, and then even list of vices in Galatians 5-20. So it's a solidly fixed meaning that's well attested in Greek literature of the day. And to translate with sorcery, magic arts makes good sense in Revelation 18-23 or in Galatians 5-20. And again, the question is, what does sorcery mean to us today? What did that Greek word mean then? Is this a good equivalent? And the answer would be yes, which is why you see it commonly in English translations.

Okay. So when you talked about the Septuagint, I would look at how it was being used that were being used in the first century, and what I see is doctors and physicians that were, you know, practicing a lot of different sciences, anatomy, pathology, and pharmacology was one of them, the knowledge of drugs. And so they would then go on and created the first pharmacopia. Right, right, no, but we know all that existed, but when you want to see New Testament usage, one of the first things you look at is Septuagintal usage, because they so heavily relied on Septuagint, and that greatly influenced Greek theory, and that's one thing. You also look at Koine Greek and related documents, but then you have apocryphal books that are written, and in a certain context, so what you're not accounting for is this entire stream of usage that is outside of what you're thinking, because it doesn't go along with the administering of drugs. So there could have been administering of drugs involved in casting spells, and hence how you get magic sorcery from it, but it certainly exists, so you're not accounting for that whole stream.

And again, it's found in the Septuagint, it's found in the Septuagint Apocrypha, it's found in pseudepigraphical writings, so it's found in other writings that would have been contemporaneous Greek writings that were read and used by the people at that time. Even in Galatians 5, there's no hint that it's talking about drug abuse, or you know, one of your vices is that you prescribe drugs, but no sorcery there. So there's a reason for this, and again, you have different streams, you have different semantic streams, and when a word is used in a particular context, you can't take, well, it means this over here, because it doesn't mean that in this context.

So then you're basically saying that there's a theory or there's commentaries out there today that 1823, Revelation 1823, can be directly translated into the word multinational pharmaceutical corporations. You don't agree with that at all then? Of course not. 100% disagree with it, yeah. With all respect to the research you've done, I 100% categorically differ with that.

It is completely mixing categories. It's like when I tell you, hey, you're a nice guy. Oh, but actually nice guy, if you trace it back in French, it really means idiot, so I'm insulting you.

No, when I say nice guy, I mean that. Look, study to show yourself approved to God, everybody knows that verse, but the word study was old English which meant do your best. The Greek says do your best. It's not talking about studying there. Later in the verse, it was about handling the word of God rightly, but no, absolutely cannot be taken to mean that. It's taking something from column A and putting it in column B.

It is taking a metaphor from one sport and using it in another sport or something. It just doesn't work, cannot mean that for sure based on the Greek usage of that time for sure. Hey, thank you for looking into it and ask yourself when you look at all the top lexicons with massive decades of scholarship behind them and sometimes expansive entries in the theological dictionaries. I've written for some of these and you've got 50, 100 pages just on one word. There's a lot of data there.

There's a reason that these translations have what they have. But thank you for the call. All right, let's go over to Adam in Montreal. Thanks for holding. Welcome to the Line of Fire.

Hi Dr. Brown, thank you for taking my questions today. Sure. Just a couple of Hanukkah-related questions since we're in that season right now.

Yeah. So one of my questions is on the abomination of desolation. So one of the common teachings is that in the end times the abomination of desolation is going to repeat like it did at the time of Hanukkah. But when I read the scriptures, when I read the prophets, I see that God's intentions are to restore Jerusalem in the last days. And also in Matthew 24, Jesus said that when he was talking about the abomination, that this generation shall not pass until these things are fulfilled. So I want to just know how you see the fulfillment of the abomination of desolation.

And was that fulfilled historically already, you know, the 70th week? Or do you see it also has some prophetic relevance? Because in Revelation 11 there's also a temple and all that.

So how do you see it? Yeah, certainly the initial application is with Hanukkah and the defiling of the temple with Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus IV in the 160s. But Jesus is speaking of a subsequent one, meaning it has multi-levels of meaning. And certainly in Daniel 9, 24 to 27 it's pointing forward to something. So it's certainly a repetition of that with the destruction of the temple in Jesus' day and perhaps the Romans bringing in their symbol on the flag, idolatrous symbol, you know, whatever the exact abomination was is still debated. But there's not a passage that I see in the Hebrew Bible that speaks of a future restoration of Jerusalem that doesn't first speak of a difficult time, be it in Zechariah 12 or 14, which are clearly end-time passages, clearly passages about the end of the age and the return of the Messiah.

I mean, quite literally he puts his feet down on the Mount of Olives. But Jerusalem is delivered of attack and suffering first. You see that in many other passages where the deliverance comes on the heels of suffering and pain. So my own expectation, my own understanding is that yes, there will be a third temple built.

I'm not dogmatic on it, but this is what I understand. There will be a third temple. There will be a final crisis. There will be a final deliverance. And out of that, the great glory will come and Messiah establishing his kingdom on the earth. I don't see anything that just speaks of everything going smoothly. And at the very least, you have to deal with Zechariah 12 and 14.

You have to. And those clearly speak of that. So even the words of comfort, when you have a word of comfort, like Isaiah 54 to Jerusalem, it's a word of comfort after a time of suffering and upheaval. When you read passages like Jeremiah 30 through 33, which speak about the terrible judgment coming through the Babylonians as the first fruits of that, and then the deliverance and the return. So all the joy, all the healing, all the rejoicing is on the heels of suffering.

So I do expect that in the future and I expect God's deliverance and I expect all of us as believers to be right here through the thick of it right until the end. Hey, thank you for the call. I appreciate it. And let's go over to Manuel in Puerto Rico. Time is short, but please dive right in. Hello Dr. Brown, thank you for the opportunity. Sure.

You can hear me all right? Okay, yeah. I'm currently working on a dissertation on the doctrine of the Trinity, and the main question really came up when I first started in my studies. Essentially the question was, who was the Father of whom Jesus talked about, right? That's the first question that I initially had in my mind when I first began studying this topic. And I just wanted to run by my main issue with this doctrine at this moment because I'm finding it very, I have my own proposed solution which I'm... Hey Manuel, let me just suggest this.

Since you're in the midst of a doctoral dissertation, or whatever the dissertation is, and we've got 30 seconds, you won't even be able to get an intelligent question out that I could answer. Shoot us a note through the website to the attention of Egal, I-G-A-L. All right, so just go to the website askdr.brown.org, you'll see something contact us, you'll get an immediate response. Don't worry about that, that's just a form response saying we got your email. But send it to the attention of Egal, I-G-A-L, and you can lay out the question academically, and he'll respond and copy me in his response if I want to add anything to it. All right, so that's where you go. And this way, or you can call another day when we have more time. All right, so this way we can do justice with it. All right, remember friends, 15 minutes, we'll be right back on YouTube. Manuel, you can post your question on YouTube if it's postable for our weekly exclusive YouTube chat. So that'll be an Ask Dr. Brown, Ask Dr. Brown on YouTube. Another program powered by the Truth Network.