Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions (including, The New Apostolic Reformation; and Does God Hate Sinners?)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The Flotilla Choir: We Con the World

31 Comments
  1. I was so convicted by today’s show. I hope that God can continue to change me into a better person. I see more clearly now, the evil intentions that were in my heart. God, thy mercy is everlasting upon them that fear thy name. Have mercy Lord, our Father. And may Jesus always be glorified, for He is my Savior and Master.

  2. To the Yankee’s fan:

    Hey Dr. Brown how do Messianic rabbi’s get around verses like Matthew 23:8?

    Just curious, because of that e-mail you got from the woman who attends a Messianic congregation and she said something about her rabbi and it sounded like you had to clarify that by saying: “meaning the leader of the congregation”.

    So I hope you can clear that up for me man, thanks!

    (I’m the Eric that called in on Memorial day in case you didn’t get the Yankee’s fan thing lol)

  3. Dear Dr. Brown,

    I am not convinced that the Son of God was one of the 3 heavenly visitors that Abraham entertained before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I left a church denomination that taught that Michael the archangel was the Son of God before he was reincarnated. Then to get around this verse…

    Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

    They would then teach that Michael the archangel was really not an angel, but was the Son of God as the head chief of the angels, but the Bible says that…

    John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    And…

    Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    And observe the connection between the word and power in this verse…

    Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

    Could it be plausible that the heavenly visitor that stayed behind with Abraham may have been someone he recognized like Melchizedek? The Bible does not directly state that Melchizedek was God, but his description could only place him in the realm of God.

    Hebrews 7

    1. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

    2. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

    3. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

    4. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

    And more poignantly, Christ’s priesthood is patterned after the priesthood of Melchizedek.

    Hebrews 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

    And the angels weren’t commanded to worship the Son of God until the time appointed of this verse…

    Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

    And we are not lead by the Bible to believe that Melchisedec was the Word Who was God. The things that are simple enough to understand in the Bible just have to make sense in my head, and I’m just not convinced, that’s all.

  4. Dear Dr. Brown,

    Please consider this verse as well…

    John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    Thank You

  5. Pamela,

    How do any of the verses you cited prove that the Son was not the One who met with Abraham in Genesis 18? It says explicitly that Yahweh appeared to him and spoke to him. If it was not the Son, who was it?

  6. Its humans that have limited the Godhead to three parts even though the Bible states that God has seven spirits.

    Revelation 5:6 …which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

    I know we are trying to enter a realm that is beyond our understanding, but to accept that line of logic, one would have to assume that the Word of God took at times the form of a human before He was born into the human race as Christ.

    It wouldn’t be unrealistic to declare…

    God the Father, God the Word who was God the Father but became God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and God the Priest who is Melchizedek since the Bible has declared that He is a priest of God forever who also has no beginning or end.

    And it would not be wise to consider the occasion where God’s voice was heard but was accompanied by His Spirit in the form of a dove. Mark 1:9-11

    I just believe God the Father was indistinguishable from the Word, the words that came out of His mouth at that time, therefore there was no separate entity designated as the Son for the angels of God to worship until He was brought in as the begotten of God.

    To answer your question more directly, I believe it was Melchizedek of whom the Bible reveals was living on this earth during the life of Abraham.

  7. Pamela,

    You are free to hold your position, but I find it utterly unscriptural and totally speculative. You clearly believe things contrary to the what the Bible clearly states, so I’ll leave it there and hope that you will see your way clear of these dubious positions – but I certainly have no desire to debate such a position.

  8. Pamela,
    I left some responsive remarks on the other Biblical interpretation position you made on the Israel response to the flotilla blog. These are strictly for your reasoned consideration. There is no insistence.

    It is certainly possible that the Son appeared to Abram (Abraham), but, to answer Dr. M.B.’s question: God can do anything within the bounds of his nature that he wishes. Consider that his voice and a dove appeared as the Son was baptised.
    Who spoke through Baalam’s Ass;who saw the Angel in the path (answer, not Baalam). Certainly YHVH appearing to Abram could be in many ways, in a pillar of this or that, as a simple desert Nomad, whatever it was viewed as, because of the completion of the remarks the visitor made about Sarah. We simply do not know what form or formative reality he used as a messenger.

    And Pamela, thus, what Dr. M.B. responded could indeed hold true. We simply do not have conclusive data.

  9. Pamela,
    I left some responsive remarks on the other Biblical interpretation position you made on the Israel response to the floatilla blog. These are strictly for your reasoned consideration. There is no insistence.

    It is certainly possible that the Son appeared to Abram (Abraham), but, to answer Dr. M.B.’s question: God can do anything within the bounds of his nature that he wishes. Consider that his voice and a dove appeared as the Son was baptised.
    Who spoke through Baalam’s Ass;who saw the Angel in the path (answer, not Baalam). Certainly YHVH appearing to Abram could be in many ways, in a pillar of this or that, as a simple desert Nomad, whatever it was viewed as, because of the completion of the remarks the visitor made about Sarah. We simply do not know what form or formative reality he used as a messenger.

    And Pamela, thus, what Dr. M.B. responded could indeed hold true. We simply do not have conclusive data.

  10. Pamela,
    I left some responsive remarks on the other Biblical interpretation position you made on the Israel response to the floatilla blog. These are strictly for your reasoned consideration. There is no insistence.

    It is certainly possible that the Son appeared to Abram (Abraham), but, to answer Dr. M.B.’s question: God can do anything within the bounds of his nature that he wishes. Consider that his voice and a dove appeared as the Son was baptised.
    Who spoke through Baalam’s Ass; who saw the Angel in the path (answer, not Baalam). Certainly YHVH appearing to Abram could be in many ways, in a pillar of this or that, as a simple desert Nomad, whatever it was viewed as, because of the completion of the remarks the visitor made about Sarah. We simply do not know what form or formative reality he used as a messenger.

    And Pamela, thus, what Dr. M.B. responded could indeed hold true. We simply do not have conclusive data.

  11. Jabez H.

    I plan to give you a thoughtful response, but it is the Sabbath now. A day of rest for my body as well as for my mind, but I will be sure to post my response to you on the first day of next week.

    Shabbat Shalom!

  12. Blog master, I apologize for three posts as one, but the trinity model seems in effect. Actually, sometimes my wireless link here bogs and, in spite of hitting the “submit comment” interactive link button, there is no indicator of response. Feel free to remove two of these, and I will monitor this lack of interactive feedback for longer timeframes when attempting posts.

  13. Eric,

    Be careful, as the concept of not being called “rabbi” is pretty close to not being called “expert” or “Dr.” or even “teacher.” I personally prefer to leave off the titles.

    I do not like to refer to the early Christian leaders as the church “fathers.” It seems the main thing is to not elevate those that minister or allow yourself to be elevated if you are the minister.

    Calling someone “Pastor John” or “Teacher Jones” or “Apostle Joe” or even “Dr. Brown” can be wrong if we are neglecting to recognize the True Shepard, Teacher, Apostle and Expert of our faith.

    We might do well to say “Brother Tex” and leave the exaltations to YHWH alone.

  14. Big Tex, the only Rabbi I call to is Yeshua. I was just asking Dr. Brown (a Messianic brother who would be familiar with this concept of “Messianic rabbi’s)if he knew the reason for why Messianic rabbi’s call themselves rabbi’s in light of Mat. 23:8.

  15. Eric,

    You bring up a good point.

    The translation of “Rabbi” into English would be “my teacher”, “my expert”, “my master” or possibly “Reverend”. There is nothing magic about the word “rabbi.”

    The messianic teachers are doing nothing different than those that call themselves “Pastor”, “Teacher” or “Doctor”, except using a Hebrew/Aramaic word that means the same. The issue is in elevating a teacher to the status where his view becomes “law.” As it says in:

    Col. 2:18-19
    18 let no one beguile you of your prize, delighting in humble-mindedness and in worship of the messengers, intruding into the things he hath not seen, being vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh,
    19 and not holding the head, from which all the body—through the joints and bands gathering supply, and being knit together—may increase with the increase of God.

    The context of Mat. 23 is that we all be equal brothers and not exalt ourselves or be exalted by others.

    Mat. 23:8-12
    8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; AND ALL YE ARE BRETHERN.
    9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
    10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
    11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
    12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

    The issue is humility. There are plenty of “experts” in the non-messianic churches that do not use the word “rabbi” and that are breaking this commnandment of our Messiah. They just use other titles.

    It bothers me when believers use titles other than “Brother”, but I am sure that many who use titles do not mean to be exalting themselves or others. As I said before, I prefer not to use any titles in reference to those that are in teaching positions and such.

  16. First, in Hebrew מורה Moreh (masculine) Morah (feminine) is how you say “teacher” in Hebrew. Rabbi means Master, and is not interchangeable with teacher. Rabbi in no way means “pastor” or “reverend”.

    My point was this: If Yeshua our Master tells us not to be called Rabbi, there is simply no getting around this. This is not a question about using titles (which we are not forbid to use) it’s an issue about doing something we are commanded not to do.

    There is no need to make a big deal about this, and the only response I’ve heard from a Messianic Rabbi was “well in Matthew 23:8 if you go to the Aramaic it doesn’t use “Rabbi” it reads “My Great One”…

    I was just asking Dr. Brown for, I suppose the traditional response from Messianic rabbi’s on Matthew 23:8.(the ones who believe the New Covenant was written in Greek and don’t refer to “the original Aramaic”)

  17. Eric,

    So, do you recognize that the context of Mat. 23:8 is about equality among believers (“and all ye are brethern”)and about humility (“greatest among you shall be your servant”)? Can you see that any title tends to elevate.

    According to my Bible program Strongs #4461 is defined:

    4461 rabbi rhabbi hrab-bee’

    of Hebrew origin 07227 ybr with pronominal suffix; TDNT-6:961,982; n m

    AV-Master (Christ) 9, Rabbi (Christ) 5, rabbi 3; 17

    1) my great one, my honourable sir
    2) Rabbi, a title used by the Jews to address their teachers (and also honour them when not addressing them)

    Messiah also said do not use the terms “father” or “master.” The Greek word for “master” means “leader” or “guide” or “teacher.”

    Here is the definition:

    2519 kayhghthv kathegetes kath-ayg-ay-tace’

    from a compound of 2596 and 2233; ; n m

    AV-master 3; 3

    1) a guide
    2) a master, teacher

    The issue seems to be a principle that applies to anything that would “stratify” believers instead of keeping them on the same level with Messiah being each ones direct head.

    Please consider that “Rabbi”, “Father” and “Master” are not the only titles we are not supposed to use. By only applying the “letter” of this command, we miss the “spirit” of the issue.

    I do not like the idea of calling someone rabbi or any other title for that matter.

  18. Big Tex,

    I’m actually very much with you on the spiritual title issue, and the only reason we use terms of respect within our school is to help the younger generation learn more about respect and honor, hence, “Mr. Alt,” or “Dr. Brown.” But as I traveled the world for many years, people simply knew me as “Mike Brown.”

    For me, the key issue has to do with spiritual titles that move us away from our equality in Jesus. Leaders are to be respected and honored, but not as superiors; rather, as faithful servants given authority by the Lord.

  19. Michael L. Brown,

    I appreciate your take on this. There is no such thing as pulling rank in the body of Messiah, as far as I can see.

    There does seem to be a difference between the common courtesy of addressing elders with “Mr./Mrs.” and giving more honor than is due through titles. We are to give honor to whom it is due, but not to go so far as to exalt or flatter.

    I haven’t gotten the idea that you use “Dr.” as a way to hold yourself up as better or higher, but there are those that do flaunt their supposed superiority by the use of titles.

    This said, I really like the idea of calling each other “Brother/Sister” as they are terms of acceptance, partnership and commitment. We are all brethern and Messiah is our teacher/expert/master/king.

  20. Big Tex,

    I was saved in a church where I was “Bro. Mike” and the pastor was “Bro. George,” so the actual use of the terms “brother” or “sister” throws me back a bit. But I’m all for emphasizing the reality of us being brothers and sisters!

  21. Big Tex,

    Rabbi means “my master”, I hope Dr. Brown confirms this so there will be no confusion. (Not to mention you included “my master” in your first definition of the word)

    Also it seems like you are ignoring the first part of the verse by highlighting the second part. When Yeshua gives us a command not to do something, we should try our best to abide by it.

    I really don’t understand your purpose if you are bringing up objections against something you don’t even agree with. So can you please clarify what exactly you are trying to tell me?

    Like I said before, I don’t mind using titles that we are not forbidden to use.

    Chesed v’shalom!

  22. Eric,

    I just do not think that we should get hung up on these exact three words that Messiah mentioned not to use. Do you see that the Greek word for master means “Leader, Teacher, Guide”? We are not to use these titles just as much as we are not to use “Rabbi.”

    I agree that we should not break the exact command of our Savior. The broader issue, however, is to not elevate ourselves or our teachers with titles.

    Is it realy good to call someone the “Righteous Reverend Tex” or the “Great Leader Eric”? Even if we take off the “Great” and “Righteous”, we are still setting the person off as more than a brother.

    Titles are against the Master’s intention that we are just equal brothers. Titles are against His heart that we maintain a sevant’s attitude toward each other instead of an attitude of “I am the Leader/Expert.”

    If I am bringing up objections, it is to show that those that insist upon using the term “rabbi” are no worse than those that insist upon “Pastor, Teacher, or Doctor.” So please be careful to use equal weights and measures, so to speak, in judging the use of titles.

    I do not think that our Rabbi Y’shua intended that we only abstain from exactly three titles.

    I do not disagree with you, but I would like to see you go a little further and deeper into the heart of the Master’s statemants, that’s all.

    Shalom to you!

  23. Big Tex,

    I don’t use any title we are forbidden to use, so that argument is irrelevant to me. I think you completely missed the point of why I asked the question.

    I was sincerely curious on what the traditional response was from a Messianic Rabbi on Mat. 23:8, I would ask the same question for someone who goes by the title Reverend.

    Once again, I really don’t see your point but thank you for trying to bring me to a deeper meaning of what was being said. (Although it didn’t have anything to do with my question)

    Blessings.

  24. Eric,

    So you think that as long as we do not use those three titles, we are in complete obedience to Messiah’s commands in Matthew 23:8-12? Do you think that the surrounding context about humility and equality have anything to do with the command not to use those three titles?

  25. Big Tex,

    You are making a mountain out of a molehill, seriously. Yeshua said if you love Him you will keep His commandments, now being called “Rabbi” is breaking a commandment if you are a disciple of Yeshua.

    It’s a very simple point, no need to make a big deal out of this. My curiosity was just the traditional response from a Messianic Rabbi on this verse. (Which you have not even tried to provide)

    Whether the passage is about humility or not it has nothing to do with being called Rabbi when you are commanded not to be called that. Either way it’s a moot point.

    So unless you can provide the traditional response from Messianic Rabbi’s on Matthew chapter 23 verse 8 to satisfy my curiosity, it’s really a waste of time to argue with you.

  26. Eric,

    I mean no argument. I was just wondering if you are mindfull of the application of the broader idea that the passage relates. I was basically doing what Paul did in 1 Cor.9:8-14

    8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
    9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
    10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
    11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
    12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
    13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
    14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

    Do you see how the letter of the commandment is applied further? (From allowing oxen to eat while they work to ministers being allowed to eat for working in the gospel)

    If we only take the letter of the commandment to not use those three titles we miss the broader application and intention behind the specific statement. This is an important aspect in understanding YHWH’s heart.

    This is what Messiah was doing when He declared “You have heard it said…but I say unto you…” in Mt. 5 and following.

    If you want to show how the Messianic “Rabbi’s” are wrong by your question then you must also look at the other ministers that break the commandment’s essence and intention. I rest my case.

    And i’m with you, I do not understand why anyone would want to be called “rabbi”.

    No offense intended. Just exploring the idea that you raised. Maybe it helped someone.

    Shalom to you again!

  27. Big Tex,

    You are still missing my point I guess, I really don’t want to get into an argument with you.

  28. Dr Mike Brown! Right on in regard to apostles today! May God open our eyes to see more of His Son and His Apostleship, which was marked with humility and suffering.

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*