Dr. Brown Tackles Your Controversial Questions

The following is a pre-recorded program. You've got questions, 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, welcome to the Friday broadcast of The Line of Fire.

Michael Brown, blessed and delighted to be with you, but not taking your phone calls today. That's because, as you listen, I should be ministering in Italy. And next week, depends if I am able, in the midst of a pretty intense ministry schedule in Italy, a few different cities, if I'm able to record some shows in Italy for early next week, we'll do it. Otherwise, we'll play you some best of broadcasts. So, stay tuned for what's coming.

But recorded this the day I was flying out to Italy, so I can't take calls today. But I covet your prayers that the Holy Spirit would meet us, that we'd have mighty outpouring, and that I get good rest. That's all we need.

I'm set otherwise. And let's just pray that the Lord would be glorified, that Jesus would touch his church in Italy. Many of you know, I came to faith in an Italian Pentecostal church, and this is my 28th trip to Italy, and the way I feel of God is just allowing me to repay my debt to the Italian church.

If you do not yet have, well, you won't have it yet, because just sign them, if you've not yet pre-ordered a signed, numbered copy of Turn the Tide, How Do We Ignite a Cultural Awakening, it comes out officially May 7th, but you can pre-order a signed, numbered copy. So, you actually pay a little more, 100% of that just goes into our ministry outreach. For those that don't know, all the books sold through our ministry, if we go out, I'm preaching, there's a book table, if we sell something through radio, online, if you order online, everything that goes through our ministry, 100% of that goes back into ministry, after the books are paid for.

In other words, I don't receive a dime for that. This is why I love doing this on the air, just to get these out to you. And signed, pre-ordered copies, you pay a bit more, it's like a collector's item, and it just helps us reach more people, our outreach. You know, you actually, when you do it, you sow into world missions, because the first fruits of all of our funds that come in go right out into supporting our missionaries, workers around the world. So, turn the tide, it's a must-read, it's a page-turner, and it'll build your faith that we can see Jesus work through us to bring about cultural change.

All right, I got a bunch of questions from Facebook and X, formerly Twitter, and let's start here. Annette, God bless you in your time there in Italy, may he be known and may he draw those that are ready to be born again. Amen. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Darren, I've seen Christians post memes on social media referring to President Biden as a traitor. Some have used Ephesians 5, 11 through 13 as justification for such posts.

What are your thoughts about using Ephesians 5, 11 through 13 as a basis to make public disparaging remarks about politicians? First, I know President Biden, if he's a traitor, is a traitor to his Catholic faith, right? I don't look at him as a born-again Christian, I look at someone as someone raised Catholic, whether he ever had a relationship with God or not, God knows. But he is a traitor to his Catholic faith in terms of positions that he espouses now, and even a traitor to positions that he would have espoused many years ago, where he has now changed those. So in that sense, he would be a traitor.

The fact that he might make certain political promises and then do something differently, I mean, sadly, most politicians have done that. But to use Ephesians 5, 11 through 13, which is that we don't partake in the unfruitful roots of darkness, but we expose them. It's shameful even to speak of things they do in secret, bring things to the light.

I don't see that as related to President Biden. If you say, well, we're to call out darkness, well, if you're calling out darkness, just do it across the board, call out darkness in the Republican Party as well as in the Democrat Party, call it out equally, call out the sin, call out the compromise, call out the corruption. But I would rather that we pray for our political leaders, express clearly where we differ with them, rather than name call, and just think of how you feel when other Christians call your politician of choice different names.

And most of them could be called names because there's enough failure and error in the parties and sometimes in the individuals themselves. I would rather call for prayer, for the leaders call for their repentance, where they need to repent, and hold them accountable, then use name calling just to answer your question. Travis, what would you say to a pastor who has been pursuing an outpouring of the Spirit in their church for years, but is not yet experiencing it? This is in spite of at least 100 every Sunday and Wednesday before service gathering together and praying, asking God to send a fresh wave of revival in that church. Well, this is a very probing question, Travis, because to pray like this for years, to persevere, to have that many people gathering, you think, where's the breakthrough?

I would look at this the opposite way, though. I would say God has not been deaf to any one of those prayers, that you have no idea how close that you could be. You have no idea what your prayers are doing already. I am far more encouraged to hear this than from a church that hardly prays at all for revival. I know it can be frustrating, and one of the guaranteed things is, before revival comes, you'll feel it'll never come.

One of the guaranteed things is that you'll lose hope. It's never going to happen. It's over. We've prayed. We've cried out. It's never going to happen.

That is virtually guaranteed. It happens over and over and over again when you're crying out for the purposes of God. I've been there.

I've lived it. God will hear. It was 13 years of agonizing cries before God fulfilled what he spoke to me in 1983 and thrust me into the midst of the Brownsville revival, and it was worth every prayer. It was worth every tear.

It was worth every day of fasting and crying out. Don't lose heart. God is nearer than you realize, and perhaps he's just preparing things for a deeper outpouring. I would urge you to read my book, Seize the Moment. I would urge you to read that. Number one, it will encourage you in the journey, and number two, it will prepare you for when the floods come.

Seize the moment. I'd urge you, your pastor and his team, to read that book. You'll find it very, very helpful. Last comment on this, George Mueller, I was told, was asked, after praying, there were some men he had prayed for every day by name for 50 years and they weren't saved. And they said to him, you know, you've seen so many instantaneous answers to prayer. I had read that halfway through his ministry he had documented 5,000 instantaneous answers to prayer. Documented them. 5,000. And they could be massive. They could be sitting with hundreds of orphans thanking God for the food and there is no food. And then seconds later, someone shows up, I just thought I was supposed to drop this food off here with, you know, truckload of food. He documented 5,000 instances.

It was meticulous in his bookkeeping. You've been praying for 50 years and you haven't seen things happen. You know his answer? Oh, if I saw God answer that many prayers instantly, how much more should I be confident he's going to answer prayers that I prayed for 50 years? And as I heard, each of these three men did come to faith. Trevor, do you affirm the assertion that physical healing is guaranteed in the atonement? And if so, could you provide your reasons why? Or would you draw a distinction and say it is available rather than guaranteed? For transparency, I do not believe it is guaranteed in the atonement. I'm just interested in your position, hearing what you have to say on the topic.

Thanks, and thanks for the full transparency. I believe it is fully available through the atonement. But just as victory over sin is fully available through the atonement and yet we don't experience it completely and perfectly in this world, that even though divine healing is fully available through the atonement, that we do not experience physical healing in fullness world.

Ultimately, we will all die unless Jesus comes in our lifetimes and this body will break down at a certain point and our faith in this world is imperfect. So, why do I say that? Well, this was based on my doctoral study, sir. When I studied the Hebrew root Rafah for my doctoral dissertation at NYU, I realized that it was not simply physical healing, nor could you just say it was spiritual healing. The root meaning was to restore make whole when applied to a body to heal, when applied to a broken vessel to fix, when applied to a broken down altar to repair, when applied to mildew in the house to go into remission, when applied to undrinkable water to make wholesome. And that to make the spiritual-physical distinction was wrong. So, it says in Isaiah 53, that speaking of the healing of the whole man. And that Alfred Edersheim rebuked those that looked at Isaiah 53 as quoted in Matthew 8 as either physical or spiritual and it's clearly both. Because it says, surely he bore our sicknesses and carried our pains, right? And Matthew 8 17 applies that to the healing ministry of Jesus. John MacArthur in the study Bible says that he fulfills that part of the scripture, carrying our sickness and pain during his earthly healing ministry, then dies on the cross to pay for our sins. Except that which I quoted, surely he bore our sickness and carried our pains, that refers to his hanging on the cross when his own people didn't recognize who he was. We thought he was being smitten for his own sins then.

We didn't realize he was dying for ours. So, the concept is that the root cause of all human suffering is sin. And by dying for our sins, he now provides healing and redemption for the entire human being, the fullness of the human being. To say his healing and the atonement is like asking, is restoration and the redemption? It's such a broad ambiguous thing.

Of course it is. Now, how much gets worked out in this world has to do with God's ongoing plan, has to do with our faith and application of his promises, has to do with the limitations of human beings. So, we await our ultimate healing with physical resurrection, correct? We await our ultimate divinity over sin with physical resurrection in a place and environment we'll never sin again, or be tempted to sin, or ever be sick again. But it is fully available. So, to say guaranteed, if we join our faith in accordance with God's will, it's all been purchased and paid for.

But no, it's not guaranteed that we all have physical healing, just as the moment we put our trust in God's mercy for the cross we receive forgiveness of sins. So, I'd make that distinction there. Let's see here. Okay.

No, answered these in yesterday's broadcast. Let's see here. Corbin, related to Trevor's question, any believer alive but sick when Jesus comes back gets healed, dead gets raised from the dead, healed of what they died from, would you consider that a legitimate application of healing being atonement? Yeah, that's the ultimate expression of it, yes. The fact that we get resurrected bodies with no sickness, with no pain, with no death, with no sin, that's ultimately what was purchased at the cross.

But I look at it like this. I call it the V diagram. So, just like the letter V. So, Jesus descends. This is coming down the left, down to the bottom of the V. He descends into our world and takes on his shoulders, our sickness, our pain. He deals with the demonic attack, all the junk that oppresses us, and then goes to the root cause of it, right at the base of that V, our sin. Put a cross there, right? He dies for our sin there. And now, as a result, go back up that V. What comes to us is this forgiveness of sins, the reconciliation with God, and peace of mind, and healing of body, and ultimately resurrected life. And his whole ministry, as Professor D.A.

Carson said in his Matthew commentary, Professor Frans Deo, from his Isaiah commentary, they point out that his whole ministry was, in a sense, vicarious, taking on the pain of the human race until he died for us. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on The Line of Fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome back, friends, to our broadcast. We've got questions.

We've got answers. This is Michael Brown here to infuse you with faith and truth, encouraged to help equip you for the battle to help equip you to be on the front lines, which reminds me of our Frontline newsletter. If you're not getting it, it'll be a blessing to you. It's free.

It's digital. Read it on your cell phone, on your tablet, on your computer. It'll come once a month, chock full of inspiration, information, testimony.

You'll just be blessed. And it's free. You'll be equipped better to stand on the front lines through the Frontline newsletter. Plus, every week we'll update you on my latest articles and videos, all of which are relevant to the world in which we're living. So, all free. Go to thelineoffire.org. Click subscribe. By the way, if you're watching on YouTube and you haven't subscribed, click subscribe and then click on the bell so you'll be notified the moment a new video is posted or we go live. T.S.

Garp on X. Just to clarify, is your position that Martin Luther was not saved due to his statements against Jews, Judaism? You'd be surprised if you see him in heaven.

Thank you for asking for clarification. In the American Gospel Roundtable with Sam Storms and Justin Peters and Jim Osmond, I said that anyone that would say what Luther is saying on that level, that synagogue should be set on fire. And rabbis were meant to teach under penalty of death. And remember, there were Luther's contemporaries, other leaders in the Protestant Reformation, that strongly differed with his views and opposed his views. And Luther in 1523, so 20 years before he gave this murderous council, 20 years earlier, he recognized that the Catholic Church had been mistreating the Jewish people. He recognized it. He understood it. And he wanted to repent of it and reach out and look to the Jewish people. So, don't just say, well, he was a product.

It was times, they had anti-blasphemy. No, his colleagues opposed what he was saying and doing. And he himself knew what was wrong 20 years earlier.

So, I said, anyone that says that, of course I'd call them a false teacher. But here's the deal. I don't know the man's heart. And clearly, he had an encounter with God that changed his life. Clearly, he was mightily used by God in ways that were all in debtitude to this day. So, I hope to see him in heaven.

I hope to be with him forever. You see, I am not the one that's damning these other charismatic teachers to hell. Okay? For example, I got tremendous flack to this day for saying that I strongly differed with aspects of Kenneth Copeland's teaching, but believed that he was a brother. Then I also said, now, Justin Peters accuses him of XYZ. If all that's true, then he's not a brother. Then he's not a brother. Okay?

And the same with Benny Hinn. When I said, I believe he's a brother, but I differed with XYZ, and I confronted him privately about these things many years ago. All right?

Many years ago. Plainly, strongly, in lighter, confronted him. I said, but if what Justin Peters is saying, this entire list, if it's all true, then he's not saved. Fine.

I'll say that. So, if this was all we know of Luther, and there was no repentance, and he hardened his heart, I don't know that you can be a child of God and do that. So, I was saying, if this is the evidence I'm being presented with, just like the evidence against Benny Hinn, the evidence against Kenneth Copeland, if that's true, that's it.

Yeah. None of them saved. But I certainly hope that Luther was.

I certainly hope that I'll see him in heaven. Would I be surprised? No. Because I know that human beings can sometimes do crazy, stupid, ugly, sicko things. Sick. And that still find mercy. I hope he found mercy. I hope he found mercy.

That's my hope. Texas girl, I really don't understand how Amillennialists dismiss the everlasting covenants God made to Abraham, Israel, and the land, as well as all the prophecies in the sea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Daniel. You can't spiritualize the entire Old Testament. You are exactly right! You are 100% right with all respect to my Amillennialist friends, like Sam Storms, right? My dear brother. With all respect to them.

You're right. You cannot. And if you say, well, the New Testament, if the New Testament spiritualized all the Old Testament and changed the meaning of it, then throughout the New Testament it can't be trusted. If God made explicit promises and put his name on the line with them and gave details as to how those promises would be fulfilled, and someone can just come along later and like, we switch it, change it with one stroke of our pen, then you don't believe them. You don't follow them. Read my recent article responding strongly to Dr. Gary DeMar, who said that if you take God out of this word, I'm paraphrasing, if you take out of this word, quote, you are a prophetic Houdini. It's bad. He even attributes positions to me that I've never held, and then rebukes me for holding them but not using them in arguments.

It's like, that's because I don't hold them! In any case, it's on our website, thelineoffire.org. It's only there because it's lengthy. I didn't post it elsewhere. Just search for DeMar, D-E-M-A-R. You'll find where I refute his hoax of replacement theology article, and then a later one responding to his lengthy article.

The betting syndicate. I heard a Jewish rabbi say that the word God does not exist in the Old Testament in Hebrew, but the word used there is instead love. Is it true? A Jewish rabbi couldn't have told you that. Not an actual rabbi. Of course not.

They might have as well told you that Mickey Mouse is the pope. What? Elohim. God.

First word. The Bible. First verse of the Bible. Bereshit, Bara, Elohim, Etta Shema, Etta Aretz. Elohim. God.

And then go down next verses. Ruach Elohim. Spirit of God. And then in the second chapter, Yahweh Elohim. Yahweh God. Over and over God.

Over and over and over and over and then El. Another name for God. Eloah. Another name for God. Just God.

They're all translated as God. G-O-D. What in the world? Somebody misunderstood something.

Or a rabbi was making some point that got misunderstood. But no, of course not. No, no, no, no. No, no, no.

Trillion times no. John, why does the gift of the interpretation of tongues seem so uncommon when many charismatic teachers teach that the gift of tongues itself is universal if you've been filled with the Spirit, especially in light of how Paul teaches that tongues in church must be interpreted? Yeah, fair question. I think we just haven't cultivated it enough. That we've either cultivated praying in tongues in private, which is beautiful and wonderful and plays a regular role in my own and plays a regular role in my own spiritual life. Or we've looked for prophecy and we haven't found value in tongues and interpretation. So I would just say we've neglected practicing it. We've neglected believing for it.

And we've done either tongues or prophecy but not tongues and interpretation. So it's simply neglected. That's all.

And should be cultivated. Let's see. Another question here.

Just looking for ones I didn't answer yet. Bucky, hi, are women God's afterthought? Thank you. Oh, certainly not. God forbid.

God forbid. God determined to create human beings in his likeness. Zechar und keva braam. Male and female, he created them. Within the very nature of God are aspects that we consider to be male, fatherly, and aspects that we consider to be female, motherly. And that the human being, male and female together, reflect the fullness of God. So each of us individually are created in his image and likeness. But it's male, female, together who have that unique fullness of God. And just like the first woman comes out of man, all men subsequently have come out of women. And it's only together that we are whole in terms of the fullness of humanity. And only together that we can procreate. There is no humanity without women.

Right? So the fact that women have different roles than men in the Bible, and that women have different roles than men in the Bible. It's not lesser roles.

It's not diminished importance. It's just different. And you don't have a single passage in the Bible praising men as men, do you? You don't have a single passage in the Bible extolling men as men. But you have Proverbs 31, beginning verse 10 to the end of the chapter, extolling women, extolling the godly wife. You don't have the equivalent.

You don't have the equivalent. Yeah, it's an interesting thing, isn't it? You don't have a passage just extolling the husband. You know, and I often joke about this, that when guys get together, we're often talking about how amazing our wives are. I've had two people in the last couple of weeks have known for years, both say I wouldn't be who I was without Nancy, telling others. Oh, Mike wouldn't be who he was without Nancy. I've never heard someone say to Nancy, yeah, you wouldn't be who you were without Mike. So I joke that sometimes guys are around talking about how amazing our wives are.

I don't think the wives are sitting around talking about how amazing the husbands are. So no afterthought. We are both essential to one another and foundational in the final thought. 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 for joining us on the Line of Fire, especially if you've got questions, you've got answers, not taking calls, because right now as you are listening and watching, I should be in Italy ministering. And we recorded this show right before I flew out to Italy on Wednesday. So if there's major news that just broke, we're not talking about it, something life and death happened between Wednesday afternoon and Friday, we're not talking about it because this was recorded before that. However, I've certainly been writing about it. If something's happening, I've been writing about it. So be sure to be checking our website.

Check daily thelineoffire.org. Just click on read. Or if you're getting our emails, then once a week we let you know here are our latest articles, here are our latest videos. I've written some really important things about Israel and the Church in recent days. Really, really important. And we want to strongly encourage you to get these articles, share them with others, watch the videos, share them.

I know you're busy, but if you're watching now it's because you value our ministry. I want to strongly urge you to take the time to go to the website, thelineoffire.org, check out our recent Israel-related articles and share accordingly. David, wondering why no one was called a false prophet in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament. Was it simply because there was no Hebrew word for it? The word false prophet, sudah profetis, is in the Septuagint and New Testament. Yeah, it's there.

I'm just trying to think of why you would think it's not there. Now most of the time they're just called prophets, right? But let me just grab a reference or two here. And let's see, we'll go to, okay. I'm just going to search for this in the Septuagint.

We'll do a little real-life study here. So I'm going to search for sudah profetis in, here we go. Starting, all right, so the first example is Zechariah 13 2 in the Septuagint. And I am just going to compare that to the Hebrew Bible.

And let's just see here. So there's false prophet there and it's just prophet in Hebrew. Then you have prophet again, false prophet in Jeremiah 6. So in each case it's interpreting.

So what's happening here, so I appreciate the observation. As I'm looking at every single instance of sudah profetis in the Septuagint, each time it's equivalent to, if there's there in the Hebrew, it's equivalent to just prophet. So they're simply saying that when there is a word rebuking the prophets of Israel and referring to them as false prophets that the Hebrew is just referring to them as prophets.

It's not that there wasn't a word. Navi Sheker, false prophet is well known in Hebrew, that phrase. So the false prophets, Navi He Sheker, the prophets of falsehood, these are phrases that are known. It's just that many times the Septuagint seems to say false prophets to indicate that when Jeremiah is indicting the prophets, God just calls them the prophets, right? So here's a word, so Jeremiah 23 9, here's a word of rebuke against the prophets, a word of rebuke against the prophets. And it's understood by context that it is false prophets. Yeah, so it wasn't a matter of lack of words or vocabulary, it's just the phraseology wasn't always used. But there are those who are called prophets of falsehood in different places in the Old Testament. The vocabulary was absolutely there and the Greek is just clarifying that when it's saying prophet, it means a false prophet. Great question, I appreciate it.

Alright, let's see here, any questions I haven't answered yet? I'm going to go back over to X. Jonas, can demons and the Holy Spirit co-exist in a believer? What does Scripture say about this? I do not believe that in your innermost being, in your spirit, where the Holy Spirit dwells as a believer, that a demon can inhabit that together with the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that.

Based on what? Based on the fact that God will not co-exist with evil and that would be almost an intimate side-by-side fellowship. So I do not believe that. I believe that the presence of the Holy Spirit would drive out demonic presence and if someone opened themselves up to demonic presence in their innermost being and rejected God that the Holy Spirit would leave based on my understanding of Scripture. That being said, a believer can be demonized in numerous ways.

Here, think of this, the Holy Spirit dwells inside of you. Can you think ugly thoughts, filthy thoughts, sinful thoughts? Yes, sadly you can.

Sadly you can. Can you speak ugly words? Yeah.

Can you do ugly things? Yeah. Can you as a believer go out and get drunk? Yeah. Can you as a believer go out and get drunk and beat somebody up?

Yeah. You need to repent, but yeah, as a believer you can do those things. Can you have all kinds of demonic imaginations about other people?

Yeah. Sadly you can, even though the Holy Spirit lives within you. Can you come under demonic power so that you become enslaved to it?

Yeah. Listening to lies, you can. As a believer, you can become addicted to something physically, emotionally. You can come under demonic power. So somewhere in your being, whether it is on you or around you or in your mind and soulish realm, demons can get lodged there and have strongholds.

That can happen. So a believer can be demonized, demon possessed, meaning that Satan owns that person, no. Demons dwelling side by side with the Holy Spirit, their innermost being, no. But demons invading the life of a believer in a way that they need to be delivered and set free, yes, I believe that can happen.

Let's see, Septem. What are your opinions on Genesis 1, teaching that God set up the garden to be his divine temple, that Adam and Eve were his priests? I see this commonly among those who follow Dr. John Walton, but I've always wanted your opinion on that also should Bara refer to function. So Dr. John Walton has popularized this view. From a critical viewpoint, Professor Mark Smith in his priestly book, Priestly Vision of Genesis 1, comes at it from some different angles.

It is not my own position. I do not see Genesis 1 as the establishing of earth as a functioning temple. There are many parallels between the creation account and the building of the tabernacle and the building of the temple. There are many parallels using the number sevens. There are stylistic arguments that can be raised.

There are ancient Near Eastern parallels. So it is not an argument void of scholarship. Dr. John Walton is a serious scholar and positions he holds to should be evaluated seriously, but it's not my own position. I do not believe that is the primary meaning of Genesis 1 or how we should take it. To me, the primary purpose of Genesis 1 is to teach us who God is and how he works in this world, to give us a revelation of God. And it's not there to teach us scientific truths. So whether it's scientific or unscientific is not relevant to me in terms of my understanding of its purpose. In that sense, it's parallel to the John Walton view that you're not reading it to get scientific information. That being said, I have younger creationist friends or colleagues, not close friends, but colleagues who would absolutely argue for the scientific accuracy of Genesis 1. Then I have older colleagues who would absolutely argue for the scientific accuracy of Genesis 1. And then those who say we shouldn't read it scientifically.

But no, it's not my own view. I've got Dr. Walton's book on it. I read another book supporting the view.

I have Professor Mark Smith's book, which again is coming from a different critical point of view, but with certain parallels and thinking. So with all respect to their scholarship, Mark Smith's one of the top euritic scholars in the Hebrew Bible scholars, and again Dr. John Walton, one of the top evangelical Hebrew Bible scholars. I just differ with it. And Bara, referring to function more than create, no, I don't read it like that. That's not my own lexical understanding.

Let's see. Keep it sober-minded. My question is that I'm a gentile, would like to get closer to the roots of Christianity, which is Jewish. What should I do, why should I do it, and what should I not do in observing a more authentic Christianity?

I would just encourage you to understand the roots without thinking that you have to necessarily change your practice. That you understand the spiritual foundation while recognizing that there's diversity in the Lord with traditions that have developed over the centuries in the church, as long as they're not anti-Bible, anti-Jewish, then you can still enjoy those traditions. If you feel that you benefit by celebrating the biblical calendar, then see if you can find a healthy local messianic congregation and join in with some of the feasts and holy days. But don't in any way think, well, you should now start to look Jewish or become Jewish or you've got to strictly observe the seventh-day Sabbath and keep the dietary laws. That'll just bring you down a track where before you know it, Jesus is not central and Jewishness is, and you've displaced the one with the other as opposed to recognizing the healthy Jewish roots of the faith. And reading books like I've written like Our Hands Are Stained with Blood and or The Real Kosher Jesus, books like that I think you'll find helpful and will help you connect in those ways.

Aloysius, I made this post earlier today. I'd be interested to hear your take, Dr. Brown. John 9, Blind Man Receives Psych, 2 Samuel 12, David is rebuked after sinning with Bathsheba. John 9, when Jesus is asked, Who sinned, this man and his parents, that he was born blind? He replies, Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God might be revealed in him. 2 Samuel 12, Because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, and the child who is born shall surely die. Okay, no, I don't see any contradiction here whatsoever, but I love the question you're asking. Which is, John 9, Jesus says it's not because of the man's sin or his parents sin that he's born blind.

2 Samuel, David and Bathsheba sin and the baby dies. So, number one, there are consequences to sin. And there could be someone who was born blind because of the sin of parents. For example, if as a pregnant woman you are a heavy drug abuser, your child could be born addicted. Or if you're a heavy drinker, your baby could be born deformed because of some type of alcoholic fetal syndrome. Nancy was telling me that major studies have been done now that beyond genetics of who's heavy or thinner historically, that a baby's genetics will largely be determined by how the mother eats when the baby's in the womb.

And that the children that grow up with mothers who overate and ate bad stuff while they were in the womb, they themselves have greater issues with diet later on. So, there are effects of sin. So, David and Bathsheba sin in a grievous way. The baby's the result of adultery and murder. And God strikes that child. There's judgment.

There is a penalty to pay for it. They sinned and they paid the penalty. However, not everyone born blind is because of sin. Not everyone born with a sickness is because of sin.

So, that's the difference here. There are two different scenarios and Jesus is explaining them. One is not the result of sin. The Bible says the other was the result of sin.

There's no contradiction, just two different sets of circumstances. We'll be right back with one of them. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on The Line of Fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown.

Welcome, welcome to The Line of Fire broadcast. Hey, as I try to do every day, shout out of appreciation to our co-sponsor Trivita. As I am in Italy right now, as you're watching and listening, I've got my Trivita products with me, part of my daily intake, especially, especially when I'm traveling overseas with jet lag and different time zones and missing nights sleep and things like that. So, building on my healthy diet, that's diet is the big thing.

Sorry, it's the big thing. These great supplements help. So, shout out to our co-sponsor Trivita for the great products and their great generosity towards us.

You can find out more by going to trivita.com. Check out what's there. A ton of different items for you to choose from. And if you do order, use the code BROWN25. That gets you 25% discount and 100% of your first order and more than a tithe of all subsequent orders are donated back to The Line of Fire. All right, I solicited questions before going on X, formally Twitter and on Facebook, and I did it for Thursday and Friday.

And I want to see if there are any that I did not yet answer. Okay, let's see here. GN, where do Christians get the idea that the abomination of desolation is a statue of the beast set up in a rebuilt temple? The abomination that caused the desolation of the first time by Nebuchadnezzar was that the people of God disobeyed the commandment of God to honor the Sabbath day. Right, but it doesn't mention the abomination that caused desolation in the days of the destruction of the first temple. This is not mentioned until the book of Daniel and it's speaking of something in the future. Its first reference would be to Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus IV, defiling the temple in the 160s BC.

That's the first reference to it. Then Jesus applies it in a second way to the destruction of the temple in the year 70, the destruction of the second temple. And there it was likely that the Roman soldiers bringing in idolatrous images into the temple. So, there will be a parallel with a final abomination of desolation with the third temple, as we understand scriptural prophecy, and that will tie in with, could it be the Antichrist setting himself up as God in the temple as mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2.

We don't know, it's just speculation at this point, so I'm not going to be dogmatic on it. But that's where they get the idea from, from Daniel, and that's where Jesus is quoting in Matthew the 24th chapter. Valent, did the Jewish people during the time of the Old Testament and New Testament have a determinalistic, fatalistic view of salvation, or did they believe in free will? They believed in free will. The writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, likely the Essenes, had a more deterministic view, but otherwise Judaism has believed in free will, but recognizing attention. So, the saying in the Mishnah is hakol tzafui, everything is foreknown, fa hareshut nitunah, but free will is given. So, the deterministic, fatalistic view, for example, that you'd find expressed in Islam, and then in a lesser way in Calvinism, no, that would not have been common in Judaism, nor is it common in Judaism to this day. There is the belief that whatever happens is God's will, meaning that evil things take place, people do ugly things, they're responsible for it, but God is ultimately God. So, if there's a tragedy, let's say you're a religious Jewish person, and there was a tragedy and you lost your family in a freak car accident, you would say the Lord gave and the Lord took away, and you would mourn over that. But in terms of your choices and how you respond, no, that's free will.

So, everything's foreknown, but free will is given. It would only be a strain of Jewish thought in the first century, certainly not reflected largely in the Old Testament that would have held to that viewpoint. Fred, is the modern state of Israel the same as biblical Israel?

How do we know? No, it's not the same as biblical Israel, but the same core constituents of the ancient people of Israel, then constituting the Jewish people through history, back in the land. Yeah, the same core constituents, and that would be confirmed by DNA as well as by Jewish history.

And then, let me just see, there was a part two. Are the people in Israel today direct descendants of the 12 tribes? Is anyone alive today direct descendants of any tribe? Yeah, plenty of people today are direct descendants, especially those of Middle Eastern Jews. In other words, you have Jewish people that have lived in the land the entire time, or in the Middle East the entire time. Exiled into Babylon, you're living in Iraqi Jews or other Jews, and they've intermarried within their tribes.

Yeah, so they would be most direct descendants with most direct DNA confirmation. Others with more intermarriage over the centuries, so white Jews and black Jews with more intermarriage over the centuries, were traced back, but with more intermarriage along the way. Yeah, I would just encourage you to, on that score, check out Dr. Henry Abramson, a respected Jewish historian.

He's got a lot of stuff. Look about origin of Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, etc., 12 tribes. So, we don't, we can't identify every single person today and say, you're a descendant of this tribe or that tribe. Many Israelites Jews have been lost to history, tribes lost to history, but not in full. So, there's going to be a remnant of different, you know, that have been passed down. The tribes that then came in with the larger Jewish people, and people of Judah, some from the northern kingdom that came in the days of Josiah, or in the days of Hezekiah, that they went south and then became part of the larger Jewish community. So, they're remnants of the 12 tribes within, but they've been mixed in, and other large parts of the 12 tribes have been lost to history. But check out Dr. Henry Abramson, Dr. Henry Abramson on YouTube.

You'll find a lot of helpful videos, and it's very balanced in his discussion. Doomguy, is the Ark of the Covenant necessary to provide atonement? Because from what I understand, they still sacrificed in the Temple when the Ark was lost, specifically during the Second Temple period.

You're correct. The Ark was not necessary for atonement. It was the blood sacrifices that were necessary. And there's even a tradition that with the Second Temple, there was just a rock there in the Holy of Holies, and blood would be poured out there because there was no Ark of the Covenant. So, no, the atonement rites functioned right through the Second Temple until it was destroyed in the year 70. The blood sacrifices were what were needed for atonement. And in the absence of that, God shouting to the Jewish people, there is a better way.

There is a better way. There is final and full atonement through the Messiah. Aaron, why does no one talk about the prophecy against Elam, southern Iran, found in Jeremiah 49, 34 to 39, and against what seems to me to describe Hezbollah, describes its tyrant side, and the Palestinians described as Philistia, and the Yemenis described as the ancient nomadic tribes, the Sabians in Joel 3, 1 through 16. Everyone was so quick to say what's happening in Israel as Ezekiel 38, perhaps it is, but these two scriptures are just as apical and point to future unfulfilled prophecies. Hey, great question and one that I don't get a lot.

I can't remember getting it at all. So, number one, I don't believe we're in Ezekiel 38 or 39 yet. We're in the ongoing unfolding of 37, but I don't believe we're in 38, 39 yet, the War of Gog Magog. I don't believe we're seeing that. Nor do I believe that we can really identify nations involved, Gog Magog, with certainty and clarity in terms of the modern-day conflict. We might be able to, but I'm certainly not going to be dogmatic and rosh, just so they're not Russia there, etc. So, I think we have to hold that lightly and look at the larger strokes of history that are being uncovered there.

The only problem with your interpretation there, and it's a fair point to raise, and people are not pointing to it, is that you could argue that it had historic fulfillment. I'm just seeing if I can pull up really quickly my Jeremiah commentary and to see what I wrote on that Jeremiah. And let's just see if I can find it really quickly.

And if not, let me just search for Elam and see if I can find it here. All right. Okay.

Oracles, here we go. Oh, come on. This has been heavily edited.

I got to untrack the changes. No markup. Time is running out. Okay. Let's just see where I talk about Elam here. Oracles. Yeah. No.

Wrong place. The oracle against Egypt. Egypt's defeated.

Carchemish. They're just historical applications. That's the challenge.

And I apologize for wasting everybody's time as I'm trying to find exactly what I wrote here. There are promises of future restoration of Elam and some others, Moab, et cetera. That's interesting there. But I see most all of these prophecies in the closing chapters of Jeremiah as applicable to Jeremiah's generation and the generation immediately following.

Right? Or a few generations down the line, not 2,500 years later. As best as I can see.

That that's their application. Whereas Ezekiel 36, the restoration back to the land only happened in part in his day. We're seeing it unfold today. 37, the dry bones prophecy. As Spurgeon said, that's not just talking about spiritual revival for the church. You can't just interpret it like that.

Right? There's much, much more going on there. So, I look at 37 unfolding in front of our eyes and 38, 39 as latter-day passages. So, I do see these things as still to come. And then, of course, Revelation 20 puts goog-my-goog would be at the end of the millennial kingdom. An even different spin on it there.

So, that's the biggest difference. It's a great question and a fair question. But I don't see it as a prophecy of today as much as something that unfolded in the ancient world that had application and relevance there. Questions like that you'll find helpful. The IVP Bible background commentary of the Old Testament. Craig Keener did New Testament on his own. John Walton and other scholars did the Old Testament. You'll often get some really interesting background like, oh, that's how it unfolded historically.

That's good to know. The IVP Bible background commentary. Craig Keener did the New Testament. John Walton and others did the Old Testament.

That's always a source I'll go to when I'm looking for a historical background. It's easy, convenient, and well done. Friends, please do pray for grace and strength as I minister a full schedule in Italy that the Holy Spirit will be poured out richly. If you're not getting my Frontline newsletter, edifying, upbuilding, inspirational, once a month free, go to right now. Take a second. Go to thelineoffire.org. Thelineoffire.org and sign up here.