You’ve Got Questions, We’ve Got Answers!

1. Dr. Brown,

   My wife and I were reading Leviticus 25 today, regarding the shabbat for the land. We were unclear about how the children of Israel were to eat of what the land produced on the Sabbath Year, yet they were not to harvest or gather on that year. What are we missing or overlooking?

   Thank you Dr. Brown,

   Trezeguet

2. @Trezeguet,

   since I saw no answer, I thought I’d provide one.
   My understanding is that no work was to be done on the land, and no one was to act like it was his possession, no exporting, no keeping food locked away and putting the prices up, but the fields were to be like public property where everyone could come and eat from it, but they couldn’t harvest it either. Basically, if you wanted to eat grapes, you couldn’t store them away, but you’d have to go for a walk to the park with your family to pick grapes together, but only picking to eat at the time, not to take away.
   Basically there’s two main concepts, six years to work on the land, but the seventh is a Sabbath of rest, no work you shall do – on the land and no storing food away in private places, like it belongs to you, when on the seventh year, it belongs to all.

3. First 54 seconds of the link – no sound –

4. Thanks Ruth–I had given up on it thinking it was a problem with my system.

5. Sure — me too — was adjusting my headphones and speaker volume and wondering 🙂

   Just wanted to comment on the show: Excellent questions, and excellent answers !! (Gratitude!)

6. This is concerning the name of our deliverer.
   It is written in acts 4:12 There is Salvation in no other name.For there is no other name, under heaven, given among men, by which we can be saved. There is only one name under heaven given to men, and his name is Yahuwah. The name is very important, it describes the character of the person. The problem with us today is that in everything we do, we do it to suit our own needs. The name of Yahuwah was blessed and given to men and we took and changed it to jesus. Keep in mind that men have always been rebellious to the word of Yah , we have always found it hard to abide by his rule ,so we find a way to bend his rules to suit our needs. It dosnt take a genius to figure this out if look in the old testiments there you will find how rebellious the human race is, all thanks to the evil shatan ( whisperer) . we also know how the pharisees refuse to believe that Yahuw was the saviour and they were the cause of his crucifixion, and how they gave the disciples of Yahuwah a hard time preaching the gospel.
   we can draw our conclusion from here that these people ( pharisees) have kept the proper name of our father and saviours name from us, twisting their tongue so that the pronounciation of names were different from the original name that was given. My dear brothers and sister do not let these men decieve you. there is only one way to know the truth and it is written in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 test all things and hold firmly that which is good. I challenge u to try the name of your creator and saviour Yahuwah. May our father Yahuwah open the eyes of those who are lost AhleluwYah (praise be o Yah)

7. David,

   Thank you for that great explanation. We appreciate it. We have another question. My wife and I were reading John 10 and verses 34-36 popped out at us. Dr. Brown or anyone, what scripture in the Torah is Yeshua referencing? Who was the Torah referring to as gods? Thank you for your help and comments. We appreciate it. This Line of Fire community is optimum.

   34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

   Trezeguet

8. “Law” is being used here in the larger sense of Hebrew Scriptures, and the quote is from the Psalms.

9. Dr. Brown,

   Thank you for the explanation on the word ‘Law’, but our question was directed towards the part of verse 34 that reads: ‘I said, you are gods’?

   Who are gods? What psalm does this line come from?

   Trezeguet

10. Trezequet,
    1. Psalm 82:1
    2. “gods” are “those to whom the Law came” [John 10:35] — i.e.: the Jews; for this reason (the Word/Law was given to them), they were considered “adopted” [Deut 14:1; Rom 9:4] (though their “adoption” was a mere foreshadow [Col 2:16, 17] written for our instruction [1 Cor 10:11]).
    Christ gives the “Spirit of Adoption” to those who believe in Him; the Spirit of Christ/Spirit of Truth [John 6:63; 14:16,17] is the “Ingraft Word” [James 1:21] — so, the prophecy “I will write My Laws in their hearts and minds” [Jer 31:31-34] is fulfilled, and they are those “to Whom the Word has come” [John 10:35].

    Compare Old vs. New Covenant “Adoption”
    a. The “Fiery Law” [Deut 33:2] through which the Jews were adopted
    b. “Spirit and Fire” believers are baptized into by the Lord Jesus

    The Law/”Word” [John 10] which the Jews received from the hand of Moses and God through which they became “adopted” was the Law — it foreshadowed how believers in Yeshua would be adopted through receiving His “Spirit and Fire”: He will “write His Laws in our hearts and minds” [Jer 31:31-34] (the Law foreshadowed the Spirit [Col 2:16, 17]).

11. @Trezeguet,

    You have to remember that Law, i.e. Torah, literally means teaching. So “it is written in your teaching”, and it was common for Rabbis, even till this day, to refer to the entire Tanakh as Torah.

12. Some Biblical passages probably refer to sins Mary committed. See Mark 3:21-35, Luke 2:48-50, and John 2:3-4. For more details on these passages, see Darrell Bock on Luke 2 (Luke, Volume 1, 1:1-9:50 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994], p. 268 and n. 18 on p. 268) and Craig Keener on John 2 (The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], pp. 504-506), for example.

    None of the earliest post-apostolic sources refer to Mary as sinless. Many church fathers, in both the West and the East, refer to Mary as a sinner either directly or indirectly. They sometimes name specific sins they think Mary committed. Others don’t directly say that Mary sinned, but imply it by saying that Jesus is the only person who had no sin, for example. See, for instance: Justin Martyr (Dialogue With Trypho, 17, 88, 95), Irenaeus (Demonstration Of The Apostolic Preaching, 72), Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:2, 3:12), Tertullian (On The Flesh Of Christ, 7), A Treatise On Re-Baptism By An Anonymous Writer (17), Basil of Caesarea (Letter 260:6, 260:9), John Chrysostom (Homilies On Matthew, 44). I could cite many other examples. Even several Roman bishops denied that Mary was sinless.

    I provide further documentation, as well as quotations from some of the patristic documents, in some articles at my blog. I also have articles documenting many other examples of how the church fathers contradicted Roman Catholic teaching. For those who are interested, the blog is named Triablogue, and you can find an index of the posts I referred to above by searching for a post titled “The Historical Roots Of The Reformation And Evangelicalism”. I provide many examples of the anti-Biblical and anti-patristic nature of Catholic teaching. That includes articles on whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, her alleged bodily assumption, and other claims that have been made about her.

13. Dr. Brown, if you’re interested in having a guest on your program to address issues related to Mary, you may want to ask James White to come on. You’ve had him on before, and he knows a lot about Marian issues. He published a book about Mary and Catholicism, and he’s debated some Catholics on the subject. He’s familiar with the patristic evidence, so he could address both the Biblical and patristic sources.

14. @Jason Engwer,

    Everyone agrees Mary Magdalene was a sinner, but Miriam the mother of Yeshua?

    You quote,

    “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” Mark 3:33-35

    I see that as not excluding Miriam, but extending his family to also include others who do the will of God. Because…

    “When Yeshua therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.” John 19:26-27

    If she really was a sinner, why would he care so much to give her to the beloved disciple?

    Also Yoseph was a righteous man (Matthew 1:19), and righteous men are not in the habit of marrying wicked women.

    Miriam would have committed some sins in her life, like most righteous Jews, but she would have sought to repent of them in deed and prayer.

15. Gentlemen,

    Thank you for your help. I greatly appreciate you taking your time to explain this to me. My main question was not about the ‘Law’ or the word ‘Torah’ or ‘Tanakh’. My question was only on why anyone was being refered to as ‘gods’.

    In other words, the word ‘elohim’ in Psalm 82:1 was being used to describe and/or refer to those in leadership/rulership, correct?

    The NASB translates the verse as follows:

    1 God takes His stand in His own congregation;
    He judges in the midst of the rulers(elohim).

    The reason I asked was because the verse in John 10 and the verse in Psalm 82, can be taken out of context, you know? …[Mormons believe they will be gods]

    I know that in the past people used to refer to their boss as ‘lord’ and even Sarah refered to Abraham as ‘lord’, but I had not heard of anyone being refered to as ‘god’. Of course there were some ancient kings that desired for the citizens of their kingdom to bow to them as if they were god, but other than that no ordinary person is called a god.

    I hope I am expressing myself efficiently.

    Would it be accurate to say that the word ‘elohim’ in these two verses is being used as an adjective and could be better understood as an adjective, to mean ‘godly’? Maybe?

    Thank you for your responses, brothers. I look forward to your comments.

    Trezeguet

16. Trezeguet,

    1 Corinthians 8
    5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

    There are many Elohim (literally: mighty ones) in earth and heaven. “Elohim” is used in reference to the Creator and to judges, rulers and mighty ones…the Creator being the ultimate Mighty One/Judge/Ruler. The English “gods” does not carry the thought well. So when we read the English, without regard to the Hebrew thought process, we run into conceptual problems at times.

    Messiah is not claiming that people are “gods” in the English sense. He is drawing a parallel between the authority that was given to Israel (especially their leadership) and to Himself as the Sent One/ Son of YHWH. He has the right to judge in a fuller sense than they do. His works/miracles prove this. They are questioning His authority to teach and to judge. So He is not making them out to be “gods” but He is showing that when one has been entrusted with YHWH’s word, He has authority. How much more the Word become flesh?

    Shalom

17. Jason,

    Thanks for the great posts! Dr. White and I were in touch a few minutes ago and I’ll be reading his book on Kindle as well as checking out your blog. The scriptural evidence, of course, is totally clear, but I have never had occasion to get into a lot of the historical debate, so this is all helpful. Feel free to call in during the program to add your two cents, and again, thanks.

18. Jason Engwer,

    Have you considered this passage?

    Galatians 4
    4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
    5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

    Those that are “under the law” are the ones that have broken it. Messiah was not under the law. He never broke it. His mother was under the law. She was “a women, made under the law.” He redeemed “them that were under the law.” He did not redeem Himself. He did not need adopting. Marry did. The phrase, “under the law” is virtually the same as, “under sin.” Only those that are under sin need redeeming. Those that are guilty are the ones that have broken the law. They are under the law/sin.

    Romans 3
    9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
    19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

    Romans 7
    14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

    Galatians 3
    22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

    Shalom

19. We know that coincidental to His birth or incarnation Jesus was announced in the Gospels as sent to the chosen Nation as the dividing Word of justification–accepted or rejected–and as became His redemption for the Gentiles. We know that He came as promised through the line of David to be the chosen One. We know that He was even prophesied over in the New Testament, on His dedication at the Temple, as to completion of the redemptive Promise through His selection as Messiah. Though it became clear in hindsight regarding the Prophets of Old, and immediately t the Prophets awaiting his dedication at the Temple (which He called my Father’s house), He was sent under the law to fulfill its requirements of atonement and promise. This too was as a man fully human, and as the chosen Divine One, fully God. This is a mystery.

    If we follow the accounts, His attention was first of and on the chosen Nation to whom He was sent. It did not shift to the Apostolic preparation and Commission to the Gentile Nations until after the chosen Nation rejected his claims and provisions (though many among it did not so reject these claims).

    Even so, His fulfillments of purpose, redemption, and prescription according to meeting and overcoming the requirements of the Law are clear enough. His encompassing result of ushering in the New and Living Way, with grace and peace, with the ministry of reconciliation, while creating the possiblities of works of service to this Kingdom end were ‘from the beginning.’ And too in regard to even more in choosing that promised of a people among the Nations of His Name.

    Yes, initially under the law, and then overcoming its limitations and requirements, to grant the greater sense of establishment of His Kingdom come, and will be done here, as in heaven. To open direct access to the Father was indeed a transformation to something greater than the law, though established in the meekest way of obedience. Greater love has no man than this…

20. David Roberts,

    The issues under dispute in the context of Roman Catholicism are whether Mary had original sin and whether she committed any sins, not whether she was a “wicked woman” relative to other women. I agree that she was a believer and was relatively righteous. But she wasn’t sinless.

    Concerning Mark 3, look at verses 21 and 31. Jesus’ relatives who set out in verse 21 seem to be the same people who arrive in verse 31. Mary is among them. And they had been opposing what Jesus was doing, as verse 21 tells us. Verse 34 tells us that Jesus is focused on the people who are with Him when He makes the comment about discipleship. In that context, Mary is an outsider. Notice that verses 31-32 repeatedly tell us that she remained outside. She’s not among the people Jesus is commending. Jesus is contrasting blood relationships to spiritual relationships. The gospels repeatedly group Mary with Jesus’ unbelieving siblings. She travels with them and is portrayed negatively along with them on some occasions.

    However, we do have reason to distinguish Mary from Jesus’ siblings. Unlike them, Mary is sometimes portrayed as a believer in the gospels. Overall, she seems to have been somewhat like Nicodemus. She was a follower of Jesus, but a distant one. She’s sometimes rebuked by Jesus for her sins, like in Luke 2:49 and John 2:4, but she’s also commended at times, like in Luke 1:28. We see the same sort of inconsistency with other Biblical figures, like Peter. But Peter seems to have been a closer follower of Jesus during His earthly ministry. Mary was more distant.

    If anybody is interested in a book-length treatment of Mary in the New Testament, I’d recommend Eric Svendsen’s Who Is My Mother? (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001). He did his doctoral dissertation on the subject, and the book is based on that work. He’s focused on Mary in the Bible, but he also comments on the patristic evidence.

21. Dr. Brown,

    How are women permitted to serve in the local church today

22. I am reading “They Thought for Themselves” that Sid Roth sent me as a result of a contribution to his ministry of reaching Jews with the Gospel. It is such an interesting book and I have learned quite a bit about how Jews think about Messiah/Jesus. I just finished reading the story of how you came to Christ and your education, etc. I had heard you had moved to the Charlotte area and had started a ministry but was interested to find out whether or not you also have a church – I’ve never read anything to that effect but thought I would ask. If you don’t, would you mind sharing where you worship in the Charlotte area, my husband and I are looking for a church home and would be interested in your choice of churches that are alive, believe in the gifts of the Spirit, teach the Scriptures, etc. We live in South Charlotte but if we could find a church outside of this area that was not too far away, we would like to visit.

    May God bless your outreach to the Jews and your ministry to homosexuals.

23. You mean there is no holy quartet, so to speak. In Europe at the time the notion of a woman as pure as a rose came to be limited in time to motherhood, a kind of set apart notion of purity. How did this get officially included over time inclusive of God’s own holiness? Considering art aware Italy, was this idealism, or something more?

24. Margaret,

    Thanks for the good word! Here’s my home congregation: http://fire-church.org/

25. I have so enjoyed reading through this and have saved some of these excellent comments as notes in my own Bible software. Thanks to all. love ya, each and everyone, JE

26. Dr. Brown—“I encourage you to major on the majors. Put first things first. Exalt the Lord and determine to be intimate with Him and bear much fruit that will last.”

    In doing that I had to open up a hornet’s nest! Pray for me as I expect to get stung more than once—shortly!

    Eph 6:10 – Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

    Luk 21:15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

Comments are closed.