Rabbi Singer on the Old Testament, Then Calls on Various Topics

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line, just want to let you know ahead of time that this could be an abbreviated version of The Dividing Line if you're watching or listening live and if in iTunes it says it's like 12 minutes long or something like that, maybe it is, it's hard to say.

I want to show you the current radar here at, there we go, and I'd say our offices are somewhere around the

P in Phoenix, sort of this general area around here, yeah.

So that big old blob, in fact there's some purple in there for a while, in the thing it's heading for, purple's a bad thing, purple's hail and purple's bad.

Purple rain, yeah, okay, whatever that is. So if all of a sudden we're gone, it's because the power went out and we lost connection and that's why.

So I'm actually going to leave that running, who knows what we'll get to see from that.

But just a warning, just in case we disappear, that's why. Okay, this morning

I went out real early and I forget who had mentioned it, somebody online had mentioned a debate that I had not seen.

I still haven't seen it because I listened to it, but I downloaded it and this morning I said, okay, let's finally get around to listening to this debate.

And so I put it on the list and found it very interesting.

As far as debates go, not the best debate, there was no cross -examination, there was basically half -hour statements and then what was supposed to be,

I think like 10 or 15 minute second statements and that was it. And it just seemed to me that the

Christian, Dr. Evans, didn't talk nearly as long as a Rabbi Tovia Singer did.

This is the debate on whether Jesus fulfilled a biblical prophecy between Dr.

Craig Evans and Rabbi Tovia Singer. I've certainly heard of Rabbi Singer a number of times, ironically

I have not heard, I believe that he debated Michael Brown once but won't debate him again,

I don't know, that's what I've heard. And I've just been too busy today to be checking stuff out,

I've had other things going on. So I've heard of Rabbi Singer for quite some time, but this was the first time, other than a couple weeks ago someone tweeted me something where Rabbi Singer was explaining why

Jesus could not have died for your sins and after about seven or eight minutes I just gave up because I could not make heads or tails of what in the world was being said, why what was being said was being said or anything,

I mean, I just sort of gave up on it. So I was quite interested once we got into this,

Dr. Evans' presentation, you know, Dr. Evans is a fine scholar in many ways, he's a little to the left of me in many areas, but it was an interesting presentation, it wasn't overly compelling and when it comes to debate my primary criticism of Dr.

Evans is that he's a very good lecturer, doesn't make you a very good debater but makes a very good lecturer and it's not really a passionate presentation and I really wasn't certain exactly how

Jesus fulfilled scriptural prophecy in light of what he said.

Well, Rabbi Singer gets up and the first five minutes easily sounds like something from Comedy Central, I mean, he's good at telling jokes with that very thick

Jewish accent and you know, you can say lots of, you know, there's some very funny

Jewish comics out there and it took him a while to get around to the issue and honestly, we're gonna look at one of the objections, by the way, we're gonna open up the phone lines too,

I guess I should have told Rich that but hey, this is, I didn't say we're gonna open up Skype so that way, you know, that would really throw you a curve but 877 -753 -3341,

I'm not sure how long it'll take, oh look at that, rain coming down outside, I'm sorry, announce it after I do this, oh okay, all right, yeah, there's very large drops of rain coming down outside now so as long as that's rain and not hail,

I, both of us would not be happy about a big hail storm right now and not with our cars out there, right out in the open, that would be unfun, anyway, eventually he got into the why but I mean, as far as the debate was concerned, it really wasn't much of a debate but I was blown away by this section of the rabbi's presentation and I just found it fascinating, found it absolutely fascinating and once you hear what he says, you'll understand why

I think it's absolutely fascinating that this is being said by a very strong opponent to the

Christian faith, very strong opponent but let's just see if we can even get this played because we're,

Rich and I are listening to the thundering on the roof and like I said, we'll see but let's listen to what rabbi

Singer says at this point in his presentation. You gotta know the

Hebrew, so the issue is this, of course we have opinions, everybody has an opinion but we

Jews are not interested in opinion, my opinion does not matter, we have to ask, listen to me, we have to ask the question and people don't ask it sometimes, we're so caught up with theology and this and that, what's

God's opinion? What is God's opinion? That's all we ask, we ask what does Hashem say?

What does God say and whatever he says, we'll follow it, we're not interested in my opinion, it seems more like this than like that, no, we want to know what does scripture say because Tanakh is the word of God and it's holy and divinely inspired and we do not interfere with the text and Isaiah wrote

Isaiah all 66 chapters and the reason why people say that Isaiah is written by multiple authors is not because it was some linguistic study, we all know the reason because they don't believe in the

God of Israel, so in Isaiah 45 verse 1, when Isaiah says that Cyrus, Cyrus lived a century later, says that Cyrus is the

Mashiach, the many people who are anointed, so of course people who a priori, of course a priori if you don't believe in the word of God, if you don't believe

Isaiah is divinely inspired, of course you have to say that Isaiah who lived 2 ,700 years ago couldn't have known about Cyrus who's the king of Persia, what do you think you're going to be told?

Listen to me, you who are going to this university, you're going to a Christian university, I imagine here they're devout Christians and so on, but you know you're going to be going to maybe go to another place, you know they're going to tell you, you think

Daniel was written by Daniel? Daniel's not written by Daniel, the question is why in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Daniel was one of their favorite texts, but they didn't know

Daniel was written during the time of the Why? Why? I can tell you why,

Dr. Evans will say, the reason is not because of some study of Daniel, they walk in with the preconceived notion that Daniel who was writing clearly about the

Greek Empire, he'd lived during the Babylonian Empire, couldn't possibly know about the early death of Alexander the

Great, and he couldn't know about the kingdom divided into four parts, he couldn't know that, so therefore because people walk in with their emotional, psychological, religious things, they then have to twist themselves into a thing in order to put

Daniel there, and if you try, go to some liberal university and say that Daniel lived during the Babylonian, you can tell a ridiculous thing, say that Daniel lived during the time of Chanukah, in time of the

Seljuks, he's attested to so widely, prophets often do not speak about other prophets, it just happens to me, it happens to be

Ezekiel who lived during the Babylonian exile, we know where he's buried, Ezekiel describes

Daniel three times, he talks about him passingly, he's not trying to be, how did Ezekiel know about Daniel, it doesn't make sense, a

Jew, he's basically the vice president, so how do we know what God's opinion is, the answer is we have to look at Tanakh, we look at scripture, scripture is our only authority, not some text, not some this, we do not recognize anything but the

Bible, the Bible is the word of God, and it is based on that, that that's how we worship God, it's based on that, that that's how we bend our knees, it's based on that, that's how we speak to the

God of Israel, and that's it. Now, I don't know about you, but I was just sort of blown away,

I really, really, really, really wish that I would hear

Christian Old Testament scholars talking like that, I've said many times on this program that we basically gave the

Old Testament up, no, no, no, don't get me wrong, there are believing Old Testament scholars, but let's admit it, in the majority of instances, in the majority of seminaries, certainly the majority of published works these days, there are certain givens that have taken over the

Old Testament that are based upon a very naturalistic, secular worldview.

I mean, a large portion of Old Testament scholarship, Moses didn't exist, he didn't have anything to do with the writing of the

Tanakh, and of course, I don't have any numbers here,

I'm just guesstimating, but I would say 85 % of everyone teaching in Old Testament would speak of Deutero -Isaiah, just what he was talking about.

He said, I believe Isaiah wrote all 66 books of Isaiah, and the reason that people don't believe that has nothing to do with the text, it has to do with the presuppositions that they have, and he's right, he's just right, and you know,

I can deal with someone who will say stuff like this and say, we need to go with the text, but it just struck me that, man,

I wish I would hear more people saying that. Now, of course, we do hear people saying things similar to what

Rabbi Singer just said, but when you join that together with a, well, what term shall we use anymore?

The standard term that would be used would be a fundamentalist mindset. Unfortunately, that term used to have a meaning it doesn't have anymore.

It used to have a meaning that went back historically to certain doctrines and beliefs, but when people talk about a fundamentalist mindset today, they're talking about the

Sam Gipps of the world. They're talking about people who show absolutely no evidence of being able to hear any other position but their own.

So we got plenty of people who will say some of the things that Rabbi Singer said, but I'm talking about scholars of the subject who will stand up and will say, you know, it may be the most common position taken.

It may be, may be the only way that you can, that you can, you know, get published.

It may be the only way you can get tenure. But there you go.

I'm going to go against it. I'm going to, I'm going to put myself in jeopardy and say, you know what?

When I look at the prophecies of Cyrus, I think

God actually knew something about Cyrus. I don't think this is just a big fat lie because if you, if you do the

Deutero -Isaiah thing, that last half of Isaiah becomes a big fat lie.

Oh, you can dress it up. You can say, oh, well, this was, this was just meant to comfort the people of Israel and assure them that God is still in control of history.

Well, it's still a lie. Isaiah didn't know this was going to happen. There's no prophecy here.

And that's clearly not the view of Jesus. That's clearly not the view of the apostles. And so it really is modern man going, oh yeah,

I know it wasn't apostolic. And I know the early church didn't have these views either, but you know, we've, we've just gotten so smart now.

We've just gotten so brilliant now. We know things, you know, that nobody ever knew before. Well, okay.

On some levels, we do know things today that no one ever knew before. Whether we join our knowledge with wisdom is a different issue.

And so I was, I heard that part, I'd be honest with you, wasn't sure what it had to do with the debate.

In fact, almost nothing that Rabbi Singer said had much to do with the debate at all.

And I was really taken aback and confused by Dr. Evans' response.

It was supposed to be his response and closing statement all in one. I, it seemed exceptionally short and really didn't engage the subject at all.

But I wanted to play that just simply to go, you know, I wish more people would, would basically say the same thing, but join that with, you know, uh,

Christian faith, uh, rather than hearing it coming from someone who, you know, very radically opposes, uh, our, our faith.

But it was, it was actually refreshing, uh, to hear that, but, you know, you can't get too excited because as soon as that happens, then you start getting some of the objections.

And I just wanted to play one of them because, you know,

I hear all of that and I, I'm, I'm, I'm like, great. That's, that's wonderful. And then

I hear one of his primary objections to the Christian belief specifically of the

Trinity. And I'm just left going, this, this is very simplistic, basic stuff, just like what we have to deal with, with the

Muslims all the time. I, it's not overly, not overly in depth.

Now I know there are people who, who try to go more in depth, uh, sometime either earlier this year, uh, maybe late last year.

I forget exactly when it was. Um, Michael Brown got me in touch with a Jewish writer and I, I engaged in some fairly lengthy emails back and forth initially, identifying his mis - his misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the

Trinity. But it became very clear, very quickly that this fellow has a lot more time on his hands than I do.

And I would get these huge emails just wandering all across the historical, theological, and philosophical landscape.

And I, uh, and, and it, it all boiled down to the, the demand, uh, to abandon the very foundational elements, uh, of what the doctrine of Trinity is in the first place.

And I'm like, well, I could be doing that. So I don't really see that we're going anywhere here.

Um, and, and a demanded redefinition of what the doctrine of Trinity actually is. So I know there's some people out there that will do that kind of thing, but let me just play this for you and see for yourself.

Uh, here's, um, here's one of the objections that, uh, Rabbi Singer raises.

Because a lot of it is talking about, okay, there's not, okay, what we're doing is we are not going to take some amorphic texts and then apply them to texts that are graphic.

What we do is we take texts that are in, this is the most basic principle. We take texts that are in the light, that are clear, and we, we then understand ambiguous texts, not the other way.

That's how cults start, by going the wrong direction. So what we do is we look at the

Bible and we ask ourselves the question, we look at Isaiah chapter 11, which, which, which Dr.

Craig Evans brought up, and he's right, it is talking about the Messiah. But what does Isaiah chapter 11 tell us about? Isaiah chapter 11, verse 1 tells us it's from the shoot of Jesse.

But verse 2, how does it end? It's talking about the Messiah. Everyone agrees that's critical here.

We don't disagree. It's talking about Moshiach. You know how it ends? It ends with saying, and he will fear the Lord. Fear the

Lord? You're telling me that the Lord feels himself? Does God fear anything? Now, there's, actually we do two objections,

I just realized. He's going to fear the Lord. Yeah.

If you're the God man, you are not going to fear the Lord? You're going to be an atheist?

You're going to, you're going to break God's law? See, once again, the exact assumption is being made that the

Muslim makes. In fact, in many ways, I've, I've said this for years in, in discussing

Islamic apologetics. Islam is a, is a

U -turn. Islam refuses to go as far and to accept the, the further revelation that God made of himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

So it makes a U -turn and goes back to the position that the Jews had, who refused likewise to allow that revelation on the part of the triune

God of himself. Incarnation, outpouring of the Holy Spirit. They both reject the exact same thing.

So they're going to argue the exact same way. And that's what they do. Well, he, it can't be the

Messiah because the Messiah fears the Lord. Well, so you're assuming that there can be no incarnation because if there are multiple persons in the

Godhead, if Psalm 110 .1 is indicating that kind of a situation and if the son were to become incarnate, you mean he wouldn't fear the

Lord? The fear of the Lord, beginning of wisdom, the very one who's always been wisdom. He's not going to, he's not going to be consistent with himself.

He's going to be a sinner. He's going to be a rebel. He's going to be an atheist. He's going to be agnostic. He's going to be a

Cowboys fan. I mean, there's only so many possibilities, you know, I mean, that all of which are completely impossible.

Just saying, if anybody was awake and especially one particular guy over in Texas someplace that, you know, he may, maybe he's out mowing his lawn or something, listening to Dividing Line, and he just, just turned off some direction and ran over his azaleas or something.

I don't know, just because I said that, but just saying, if you're awake, it's the exact presuppositional assumption that all our

Muslim friends make. Well, God can't become man. Because if you even allow for, okay, hypothetically, if it happened, would he fear the

Lord? Well, of course, then this really isn't an argument against Jesus being the

Messiah, is it? Because you're assuming Unitarianism, you're assuming there could be no incarnation, and you're assuming a very odd understanding of what an incarnate one would be like in the first place.

So it's not really an argument, but there you go. And it, the next one's very similar to that.

Yep, that's what your Bible says, and that's what our Bible says, and that's what we, how many times have

I quoted Numbers 23 -19 to a Mormon? And in fact, it's funny, I didn't queue it up, but he starts his closing statement with a joke.

And the joke was, why did God make Mormons? So Christians would know what Jews feel like.

Well, think about what that means. What he's basically saying is, you know,

Christians look at Mormons, polytheists. Well, the Jew looks at the Christian, polytheist, just like the

Muslim does. The difference is, of course, that the Mormons openly, fundamentally, without question, embrace polytheism, so much so that the very

God of this world was once a man who lived on another planet, had a God before him. And there's an unlimited number of gods, okay?

The most polytheistic religion on the face of God's green earth. So we quote

Numbers 23 -19 to the Mormons all the time, because we have to, because in Mormon theology, the very essence of God's being is that God, man, and angels are all the same kind of being.

We're all the same species, just at different levels of exaltation. So is that what we are saying?

Of course not. Fundamental misunderstanding. We are not saying that the fundamental essence of God is man.

God created man. God did not cease to be God when he entered into human existence.

But our assertion is, and maybe this would be, maybe

Rabbi Singer would repeat the topic that I did with Abdullah Kunda. Can God become man?

Because that's the presuppositional issue here. Presuppositionally, he's assuming that can't happen.

But my argument has been and continues to be, if God can create perfect human nature, why cannot he join a perfect human nature to himself for his own purposes, for his own self -glorification?

It does not change his essential nature. It is not a, you know, humans so that Jesus becomes 50 %

God and 50 % man and it's a demigod type mixture type. No, none of that.

None of that. So when you hear someone quoting

Numbers 23 -19 against Christianity, there's a fundamental problem on the part of their understanding of what our assertion actually is.

And certainly any Christian, any Christian should know their own faith well enough to be able to explain to anyone, whether it's to Rabbi Singer or to any of my many

Muslim friends out there who will quote the exact same text. And I think in their more honest moments will admit that they frequently find themselves visiting

Jewish apologetic sites to get some of their arguments. Um, whoever it might be, we need to be ready to say, well, we believe

Numbers 23 -19. We're not saying that the essential nature of God has eternally been that he's a man.

The word became flesh at a point in time. The word has not always been flesh, but the word has always been the word and the word has always been eternal.

And the word has always been in the presence of the father. And the word has always been as to his nature deity,

John one, one. So there's just some of the things that we need to consider.

Uh, and I was, I was really surprised at, at the argumentation that Rabbi Singer presented because it, it did not present to me a real full understanding of what the doctrine of the

Trinity is actually stating and hence did not really provide a real strong, uh, critique of the

Christian position. But again, it was extremely interesting, uh, to hear him, uh, unabashedly, uh, affirming belief in the entirety of the

Tanakh and a rejection of the liberal consensus that unfortunately has become, you know,

I would like to hear his responses to some of the criticisms and things like that. But the main thing that, that caught my attention was the simple fact that the real impetus behind, um,

JEDP and Deutero Isaiah and, uh, view of Daniel and all the rest of that stuff is people who simply go, well, we, we can't really think that these folks had, you know, that there was prophecies.

And I especially find that so completely problematic for a Christian, uh, given that you can't read the gospels, uh, without recognizing the centrality of the fulfillment of prophecy in the life of Jesus and in his own self understanding of himself.

Uh, it's just there. You can't, you can try to attribute that to Matthew or something and say he went overboard.

It was too zealous or whatever else. You can do whatever you want. Uh, but, um, uh, there, there you go.

So I found that interesting. Wanted to share that with you today. Uh, and, uh, so there you go.

Um, you can find that debate, you can watch the whole thing. It wasn't very long. Like I said, it, it was more like dueling presentations than it was a debate.

Cause it, again, if you don't have interaction, you're not having a debate. Uh, you know,

Dr. Evans could have gone into one of his classes, given his 30 minute presentation and his, what sounded like a, well, he spent a bunch of time talking about antisemitism, uh, in his closing thing and almost nothing on the topic of the debate.

He could have done all that in his class, record that. And then Rabbi Singer could have recorded his thing and you could have watched both of them and he would have had the exact same thing.

That's why it wasn't really a debate. Uh, you don't have cross X, don't have interaction debate could have been done some other way and probably save the, uh, airline tickets, a few things like that.

8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1.

Um, now, uh, Rich, are you sure about line two? Yeah.

Cause I told him, I told him in channel that you were pretty, uh, well -trained at, at getting rid of him.

Uh, you know, just, just simply by voice. Uh, so that's what you get for telling me five minutes after we start the show.

So, Oh, okay. All right. So I'll, all right. Okay. There, there you go.

Okay. Let's see here. So let's, uh, if anybody else calls in, we'll make sure to put them before Alan, but, uh, uh,

Andrew called in first anyways. So let's, uh, let's talk with, uh, Andrew. Hi, Andrew. Hey, Dr.

White. How are you doing? Doing good. Good. Just first thing, where do I buy one of those Calvinist assurance meters again?

Well, uh, we're, we're having a little problem getting them on, um, um, uh,

Christian booksellers, Christian booksellers, distributors or whatever it is. Cause I think there's, there's too many, uh, uh, uh,

Methodists on there. And so they're into a second work of grace or something. And so, uh, they, they're not, they're not carrying it for us.

And Amazon turned us down. So I'm not, it, it, it may, I'll be on eBay or something eventually.

Cause you can sell anything on eBay, I guess. So, uh, I saw someone actually posting, uh, their

Fitbit, uh, right before the program on, on, uh, Twitter and they had like 2 ,300 steps.

And so they said, man, I'm, I'm doing pretty good in my salvation today. And I looked at mine, I have 26 ,000, which means

I'm at sinless perfection right there, which I think is your, your question anyways. So. Yeah, I was about to say that's exactly what

I was talking about. Well, as I'm sure, you know, that, um, 1st John is among the strongest, um, evidences for the

Lordship position, which is very, very good. And having dealt with the anti -Lordship position many, many times, um,

I've heard every objection that they've ever said. I, I don't,

I haven't heard an objection that I haven't heard already 3000 times already. So, but I think the best one that I've heard so far goes into this area is, which

I've had a hard time responding to, which is if we accept those verses in 1st

John as assurance verses, then what defense do we have against sinless perfectionism, where it says, if we have been born of God, whoever has been born of God does not sin, or if we know

Him, we will walk as He has walked. And various, um, other scriptures in 1st

John that have that feeling where if we, it doesn't put a qualifier on it.

Well, it, it, well, it does in the sense that, uh, it, it does in two ways.

A, 1st John has started off talking about, uh, those who, uh, would deny that they sin.

And the answer to that is seen in, we have an ad, if any man does sin, we have an advocate with the

Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous, and that's present tense. So that the, there, there would be no way to, uh, go through 1st

John 1 and come up with the idea that we don't need an advocate with the Father because there's, there clearly is the continued experience of sin.

And so that's why when you look at He who was born of God does not sin, you have to recognize the difference between and that John is using the present in the habitual, uh, sense of that, that lifestyle, not the heiress sense of individual experience of sin.

And that's certainly how the text has been understood. It's certainly, it wasn't understood that way, um, by many in the early church.

And that demonstrates how many in the early church had a very sub biblical understanding of anthropology and things like that.

I mean, when you have some of those early writers who had the idea that a single sin after baptism would, um, cause you to be lost forever, it really didn't origin believe that or something.

Well, who knows what origin believed? I mean, origin, you could claim origin for almost anything.

And remember the majority of his works have never even been translated into English. So, uh, there's probably all sorts of other wild, crazy loony stuff out there.

We've had any run into, but, um, the, the, I, if I recall the, uh, uh, epistle of Barnabas, shepherd of Hermas, um, has some of that kind of, of idea connected to it.

You listen to something like that and you go then exactly, did these folks really deal with the concept of the mediator in Hebrews or, or any of the rest of the stuff.

So there, there are a lot of, there are a lot of early writers that did not have what we would call a pan canonical view.

Uh, uh, you know, Justin Martyr never quotes from Paul. So there's some real, um, imbalances with, with him as well.

So you, you've got that, but if you've got the entirety of scripture and you're looking at the entirety of the new

Testament and you're allowing it all to speak, you just can't come up with these, these extremist positions without ending up, uh, basically doing to some texts of scripture, what the non

Lordship people end up doing with James two, which is fundamentally standing on its head. And you end up having to do that with the mediatorship of Christ or whatever else it might be in these other, other, other things.

So I think, I think there is a rather strong argument to be made in regards to first John, um, that, uh, when he's, he's talking, you know, they're talking about sinless perfection, uh, they're, they've missed the introduction of John and they're also missing the difference between the, um, the aorist experience of sin and the present tense experience of sin.

There is a, there is a difference between those two. Uh, and I, I think most of us recognize that in our own experience.

So basically what you're saying is do proper exegesis and don't get on balance. Well, you know, uh,

I said long time ago when I wrote the little book on, uh, the late Harold camping, uh, dangerous airwaves, um,

I had a whole section in there on the fact that, you know, camping would talk a lot about believing the

Bible to be the word of God. We believe the Bible to be the word of God over and over and over again. But when yeah, but that, and that's the whole point.

When you refuse to utilize a meaningful exegetical system that allows

God to speak in his word, uh, and force the word into the parameters that your method of interpretation will force it into.

Well, you're not, you know, you can talk about being the word of God, but you're not treating it like the word of God.

And so the more we work at truly allowing the text to speak for itself, um, and that means the work that goes into doing serious exegesis, the more we're showing, we really do honor this as God's word.

And we want to function it to function in our lives as God's word. And that's why a few of us are, are a little bit on the, uh, uh, particular side.

When we hear people talking about how you shouldn't bore your people with verse by verse exposition and all the rest of this kind of stuff.

I just, there, there's some, there's some serious problems there. Uh, and exegesis,

I think is one of the most important ways of honoring God and honoring his word as, as scripture.

Of course. All right. Um, just one real quick resource question. Um, I've been looking for this on the internet and all

I've been able to get run across is, um, horrifically liberal stuff.

Is there anything out any historical work that discusses the, um, social system back in the ancient world and how, like different tasks were viewed and maybe how the

Jews had a vitriolic hate for the Gentiles pre the arrival of Jesus Christ?

Well, um, you know, uh, there are resources and, you know, like FF Bruce did,

I think FF Bruce did a new Testament history book that was, that covered the intertestamental period quite well.

I'm trying to remember what my, uh, particular seminary, uh, textbooks were for that particular class, because when

I took it, I remember very clearly how most of my, my fellow students were bored out of their minds.

And I was the only one who realized how vitally important this was because I was already involved in apologetics.

Sometimes you can get some of those textbooks and, and those textbooks will almost always have for further reading bibliographies, stuff like that.

They're a gold mine for that kind of information, especially articles that you'll find, uh, in various of the, uh, of the journals that might get a little more focused in regards to the view of the going, um, uh, by the, the

Jews as represented in the intertestamental literature of such and such a book or something like that.

That's, that's normally the best way to track down that kind of level of, uh, of, of information.

But I I'm thinking it was a, I think, you know, I think it was FF Bruce, new Testament history was one of them, but I can't remember the others off top of my hand, but the head, but there, and there's also some excellent

Jewish sources. I'm trying to remember the, the name of the Jewish scholar. Again, uh, if I was in my library,

I'd be able to, Jacob Neusner, uh, Jacob Neusner would be another one to see if he has something on that particular period of time, uh, might be helpful to you.

Right. Well, thanks for answering two questions, Dr. White. You have a fantastic day. All right. Thank you. God bless.

Bye -bye. I guess I shouldn't skip him. All right.

Hello, Alan. Dr. White. Yeah. Hi. Are you driving right now?

Yes. That's a, that's, that's, I, I should hang up right now because, because I know your driving skills or lack thereof.

And so distraction, um, I mean, uh, I distracted you once while I was in the car with you and ended up sitting in traffic for a half hour as a result.

So what this, this could be disastrous. No, it's fine. I'm not going to get lost on my way home.

And you told me in channel, not an hour ago now that you're going to talk about my favorite topics on today's show.

Jewish misunderstandings are not my favorite topic, Dr. White. Well, I was actually obviously being completely facetious, uh, because you said you were leaving.

And so I just wanted to... Pretty much anytime you speak to me in channel would be that way. That's true.

That is very true. Yeah. I should have understood that. So, hey, listen, so, uh,

I'm an excellent driver. So, and I was thinking about gay marriage while I'm driving on the way home and the approval of it.

I was talking in channel to some mutual friends of ours who shall remain anonymous because, well, they're anonymous.

And, uh, we talked about, um, whether or not it's, you know, an outright sin to attend, uh, a gay wedding.

We've talked about baking a cake before and stuff, but this was a little different attending a gay wedding.

And so the text in mine is Romans 1 32. Sure. You know it. Um, and there's a distinction in the text that, that I hadn't thought about before.

And the distinction is that in Romans 1 32, it says, though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die.

They not only do them, but give approval to those who practice them. Now, some churches and some people that we both know are taking the approval clause there and saying anybody who attends the wedding is in sin, which on the surface sounds good.

But when you look at the text, it actually says that those who do the misdeeds, the sin and give approval to them, uh, you know, give approval to those who practice them.

So it seems to be there. If somebody, if a Christian who is not doing them, as it says in Romans 1 32, but merely attends a gay wedding, are they, do they fall under the condemnation of Romans 1 32?

And then the fact is, I would think that anytime you approve sin, you're in sin by approving sin.

So maybe this verse just isn't applicable at all. Well, it wouldn't be the first verse that I would go to on the subject because it, the verse is specifically referring to the insanity of sinners and the fact that they love company in their sin.

And, uh, even in knowing that they're under the wrath of God, they encourage others to put themselves under the wrath of God as well.

Um, and that's really what it's talking about. Uh, I, I would be much more in line with what

Dr. Moeller has said, and that is the recognition that, um, uh, attendance at a wedding is from a

Christian perspective, attendance at a covenant relationship, the beginning of a covenant relationship, and that you are participating, uh, as the audience, which is why in the, the

Christian tradition down through the years, you had such things as if anyone can give reason why this couple should not be joined together, let them speak now forever, hold their peace.

And, uh, before these who are gathered here and before God, you're making these, these, uh, these vows.

And, and it was very, very clearly intended to be a, a public statement of a covenantal relationship between a man and a woman.

And so, uh, it is, uh, to me anyways, the, the real foundation for saying, uh, that a

Christian cannot attend, uh, a, a profaning of marriage ceremony is found in the very name.

It's a profaning of marriage ceremony in the same, from my perspective, it's the exact same issue of, of my going to a

Roman Catholic wedding and actually attending in and participating in the mass as a part of that wedding.

I can't do that. Um, I cannot, uh, celebrate, uh, even though it's a man and a woman, uh, entering into marriage, uh, it's being done in the context of profaning the finished work of Christ.

So it's the, the issue is, is that which is holy being profaned by this activity.

And if it is, uh, then as, as a Christian, I, I cannot in good conscience, uh, participate in, in the profaning of that, which is, uh, holy and, and, and good.

So there is nothing in the New Testament that, that foreshadows, uh, the, the level of debauchery that we have fallen to in Western society, uh, in regards to, to marriage.

Uh, but I think that there are clear, uh, principles that, that, uh, are properly applied to the, the subject at hand.

Uh, I agree with, with everything you're saying, I guess the, the question is, well, this is what

I would say. I would say, listen, to, to go to a wedding is, is you are approving that wedding by your attendance there.

I would say, if, if you can find, show me a way that you're attending a gay wedding, but you are not approving of it, then by all means go, you're in an area where you're, you're following your conscience there.

But I don't think there's a way, I just, I say that because I don't think there's a really way out.

I don't think there's a way you can say, Hey, I'm going to go to this wedding, but I disapprove of it. I, I don't, if you can do that, show me that show, you know,

I'll, you know, show me from logic and reason that there's a way that you can go to that gay wedding and, and not be in approval of it.

Fine. Go. You have, you have the freedom to do that, but I don't think there's a way to do that. But at the same time,

I would be very careful about making a law, uh, where there is none in scripture.

Um, I always want to be careful about binding the consciences of, of any of, uh, any of the, um, the followers of Christ with something that is not explicitly scriptural.

However, at the same time I'm with you, I don't think there's a way you can go to a gay wedding and not be in approval of it in some way, shape, or form.

And I'm home. So you can breathe a sigh of relief. Now I'm done driving. I'll be honest with you.

I wasn't, I wasn't really, you know, too concerned. Of course you're not. Hey, guess what?

Two years ago today, I bought this awesome little red mini Cooper and it's still in one piece.

Huh? That's great. Okay. Well, you know what? I'm going to go, I'm going to hang up on you and my friend.

Okay. Actually, I just hung up on him. All right. Before he could hang up on me, let's talk to, uh,

Aaron. Hi, Aaron. Hey, Dr. White. How you doing? How you doing? Good. Good.

Good. Good. Actually, I'm a regular follower of your show on, um, well, whatever day you have it on. It depends on when

I feel like having it. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Hey, I've been a

Calvinist for quite some time and I actually had a question about the Ordo Talutus. Uh, it's kind of,

I've had some issues coming up. I was thinking about some of the Old Testament passages, uh, foreshadowing kind of the, um, the new birth.

So looking at, for instance, uh, Jeremiah 33, where God will, um, write his law on our hearts and that we would be caused to know him or Ezekiel 36.

Uh, he will take out the heart of stone, give us a heart of flesh that we would obey him. And, uh, the scriptures like that.

I think, I think I can also include Deuteronomy 30 in there as well, where he will, uh, circumcised our hearts that we would love him.

Those are all future tense. They seem to be talking about the, um, the new birth in the

New Testament. Correct. Well, yeah, but I mean, uh, some of those are talking about the, uh, the specific new covenant fulfillment, but there clearly was the experience of that kind of work of grace amongst people in the

Old Testament as well. So, I mean, you know, David, I'm, I'm sure, uh, you know, was, uh, you know, there, there's only been one way of salvation throughout in the covenant of grace.

It's, it's always been God's grace. It's always been faith in God. Uh, there have been different administrations in the sense of, um, how one lived one's life in light of one's profession of faith.

But, um, the covenant of grace would, would indicate that there's, you know, as Paul says in Romans chapter four, how was

Abraham just justified before God? Uh, well, the same way that we are now, did he have this same explicit level of knowledge and understanding of the person of Jesus Christ and, and things like that?

Uh, I don't believe that he did, but, um, the still as, as Paul says, the gospel was preached to him.

Uh, the, the question is going to be the, the breadth and length of the, uh, amount of gospel knowledge that is included in that.

Exactly. Yeah. So I think you can probably, uh, figure out where I'm going with this, with the order salutis, where you have regeneration, opening up people's eyes, giving them the heart of stone or giving them the heart of flesh and, uh, just giving them new birth.

And from that, being able to have faith in God. And so I have my own way of answering this, at least

I think I do. Uh, but from those passages, uh, it just seems like it's a, it's a

New Testament reality. And I just wanted to see how, what you thought about, like Abraham, for instance, like what caused, like, his faith, for instance?

Like, how would you, how would you go about answering that? Well, I, I don't, like I said, I don't think there's any, any difference between, uh, you know, the covenant of grace is the covenant of grace.

The, the state of man is, is the same, uh, in old and new Testament, uh, men in the old

Testament were, uh, spiritually dead, required the spirit of God to open their hearts and their minds.

Um, I'm always concerned when I hear some of my synergist friends basically saying that in reality, uh, in the old

Testament, you had truly righteous men and they were righteous apart from grace. Um, I, I think that's a, uh, a fundamental undoing of Paul's own theology at that particular point.

So, um, I don't think the Ordo Salutis has, has changed.

Uh, I just think it's become much more explicit in, uh, in the New Testament, just like I, you know,

I think there's always been the, uh, existence of the dead after the life in this world, but it's, it's seen much more clearly in the

New Testament than it is in the old. So would you say the experience of essentially

God encountering somebody to awaken them to faith may be even more intense or more, um, much more of a, a deeper reality for those who are in the

New Covenant? Well, regeneration is regeneration. And, uh,

I think in the New Covenant, you have that, uh, you have that writing of the law upon the heart, but that there, that's, that's happened with everyone who has ever been saved.

That's why I think there's, you know, there's this kerfuffle among some people who, um, you know, there's, there's a, there, there are people who would say that Abraham was in the

New Covenant. And I think what some of that comes from, I think part of it's an overreaction to Presbyterianism personally, but I think part of, of where, uh,

I think part of where that's coming from is a recognition of the reality of the fact that if you're, if you've been regenerated, whether it's

David who's regenerated or Isaiah who's regenerated or whatever, it's always

God's word, God's spirit, faith in God, uh, faith in the promises of God.

There's it, it's all, it always has the same nature and, you know, so, uh, what, what makes the, the

New Covenant, uh, superior to the old is not the issue of regeneration. Uh, it's, it's the extent of that, uh, that work of regeneration amongst the people, the people who are called the people of God, rather than having the situation that you had in Old Testament Israel, where you have a remnant who is being saved out of the people who are called the people of God, uh, in, in the

New Covenant, you have no one saying to his neighbor, know the Lord, but they shall all know me. So, uh, there's, as I understand, that's the difference between those.

Okay. Okay. I also have another question. Um, I was on the channel the other day. Are you, are you

Dr. Oakley on there as well, or is that a troll? Uh, that's a, uh, that is a state secret. And, um, that's one that the theory is, the theory is that that is one of the classified, uh, documents that was on Hillary Clinton's server.

And, uh, and that's one of the reasons that had to be wiped with a cloth. Uh, yeah.

So when you come into the channel, that's just one of the things you have to learn over time, experience and suffering.

Oh, gotcha. Yeah. Gotcha. Yeah. Yeah. That's how you learn. It's not, it's interestingly enough, even though we're reformed channel participation is not of grace.

Uh, it's, it's a very, yeah, there you go. Yeah. I was actually the one who posted the thing about John Walton, about the, uh, kind of the bio logos stuff.

I had some questions about that too, but I'll probably, I seem to remember that someone said to you in channel, never heard him.

Yep. That would be me. There you go. Uh, yep. All right. Well, I appreciate it. Hey, keep me in your prayers. Um, I actually had a family member die.

I'm actually doing the funeral tomorrow. Uh, but yeah, it's going to be going to be pretty intense, but keep me in your prayers about that.

But, um, I appreciate it. All right. Thank you. Bye -bye. Um, getting right top of the hour here.

And I saw something here in Twitter. I need to look at real quick. Um, was just asked a question.

Can you recommend any good works discussing the differences between biblical slavery and civil war era slavery?

Uh, I'm studying that right now. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago at PRBC, we've moved from Leviticus to Deuteronomy in the holiness code study.

And, um, I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, I just can't see how

I can cover the slavery issue in a sermon format. There's just, you have to go through the nature of indentured servitude.

There are a couple dozen, uh, texts to be looking at in the law, specifically, uh, looking at how the year of Jubilee, uh, the parallel to other nations around Israel, um, then the difference between Hebrew slavery, indentured servitude, basically how they could deal with foreign slaves,

Roman slavery, the new Testament by Lehman, uh,

Paul's statements in regards to, uh, you know, being obedient to your masters.

And then the chattel slavery of Rome and the chattel slavery of, uh,

England, Europe, and the American South. Well, it wasn't just the American South, but eventually became associated primarily with the

American South. Uh, I can't say you can put that into a sermon. Someone might be able to do it, but I'm, I'm, I'm a lousy preacher to begin with.

And that's way too tall of a hill for me to climb. So I'm going to have to do that in the form of Bible studies where we can sort of divide up into sections and do it in parts.

And I don't know when I'm going to get to that because one of the things that I was going to start doing today was play some of Brownson on Romans one.

And, uh, you know, we've got next week and then I'm, I'm overseas for three weeks.

Uh, but that's one of the things we're gonna be doing. And so I, I don't have those resources with me.

Um, but, uh, there are, I have tracked some of them down. I don't remember off the top of my head what they are because I haven't started reading them yet, but I am starting to look into all that material right now.

And so maybe a little bit later on down the road, I will be able to give us a recommendations as to some books on that particular subject.

So, um, uh, that was a, that was a good, a good question. Why? Oh, okay.

But I looked at the topic and this is not a short, uh, topic to address. So, all right, let's talk to Josh.

I've been told I have to talk to you, Josh. Uh, well you don't have to, but I would really appreciate it.

Um, I just have a really quick, well, I guess, no, it's not a really quick, um, as quickly as you can, if you can just explain all in first John to, to, um, my father is like hate

Calvinism and, um, that's the one verse I've never actually heard like a convincing argument on.

And I'm just wondering like what your view is. I've actually, I read the Potter's Freedom, but I just, can you expound upon it a little bit?

And that's, yeah, that's it. I was, uh, wondering if, uh, oh, it was second

Peter two, one that I included in the, uh, in the lengthened appendix in, uh, in the second edition of the

Potter's Freedom. I didn't do first John two, two. Um, I know that there is a fairly lengthy, um, dividing line on this.

I'm not sure if you have searched, um, or if we properly tagged, um, riches is looking right now.

If we properly tagged that particular dividing line where we spent a fair amount of time on first John, uh, two, two.

Um, but in, in essence, uh, it's, it's not, it's not,

I'm not sure what translation you're looking at, but you're, the phrase you're thinking about is Kai Peri Halu to Cosmo.

And there's, there's, there's two things. Uh, the first thing that has to be determined is the meaning of the last

Moss. Uh, what does propitiation mean? And for the majority of people who use first John two, two as a proof text for universal propitiation, um, the only way to do that consistently would be to be a universalist because propitiation is not a theoretical thing.

It is not, um, as, as most people seem to understand it, uh, the provision of a way out.

If you will do X, Y, or Z, a propitiation, uh, is a sacrifice that takes away sin and fulfills the wrath of God.

That's what petition is. That's why liberals don't like the term propitiation. That's why they prefer the weaker form expiation because propitiation specifically refers to that, which removes, uh, the, the wrath of God and satiates the wrath of God.

Well, that would make this a primary text for universalism, not for a, a general atonement because general atonement has to present something less than Hill Osmos.

It has to be something less than propitiation. It has to be a, a, a possibility or, uh, a, a mechanism whereby, uh, propitiation can take place if you do

X, Y, or Z, because otherwise, uh, you have everyone who is in hell, uh, has, has their sins have been propitiated.

Uh, if that's what, uh, hollow, uh, to Cosmo means, but what, what is being referred to, uh, especially in light of the fact, this is right after the discussion of Jesus Christ.

We have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. Well, who has an advocate with the father?

Uh, what, what does that mean to have an advocate for the father? Again, it goes back to what is Christ doing in the presence of the father for whom is he interceding?

What is the nature of intercession? Uh, these are again, all things that people like to skip over and not think about and not admit, well, yeah, it's really important for us to have an understanding of this, to, to even in reality, be dealing with the text in any meaningful fashion.

Uh, but, but people jump past all of that. And so without a discussion of Hillos Moss and without a discussion of what the intercessory work of Christ is, then the answer

I give won't make much sense to them because they're not really thinking about it in the right categories. But when it says he himself is a propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for those, the whole world, that is a statement to believers to always be reminded of the fact that Christ's work is not completed.

When we come to salvation, there are still many others who have yet to hear the word.

He has his elect people. We can't sit upon our own laurels and rejoice in our experience.

We need to recognize that that, that work of Christ extends to, and of course, from the

Jewish perspective, the whole world, you have to ask yourself, well, where does John use that, that phrase and that kind of imagery.

And it's found in John chapter 11, uh, where the high priest prophesies that by one man, uh, uh, there, there'll be salvation.

You have the fulfillment in revelation chapter five for by his, his blood that, uh, that lamb has, uh, made us

Kings and priests and a God who men from every tribe, tongue, people, a nation, every tribe, tongue, people, a nation, and hollow to Cosmo, the whole world.

That's, that's the same thing. We Westerners tend to think of the entire world as a world of individuals and hence make this individualistically extensive rather than the very language that John uses.

And that is, is extended to the entire world, men from every tribe, tongue, people, a nation,

Jew and Gentile, both. And we as believers have to keep in mind that just because we've now come to know this, one of the most important things for us to remember is that we then are called to be the instruments of bringing that message to everyone else who likewise will find

Christ to be a perfect savior because they also are of the elect of God that the term elective God is not used here.

But, uh, I would argue that that is certainly something that all the apostles taught very, very clearly.

I mean, John did happen to write John six and John 17 and John 10. Uh, and so to read that out of their understanding would be, uh, not to handle them properly at all.

And it kind of just give you a little bit of context. My dad is a King James only. Well, okay.

Uh, you know, uh, there are King James only, uh, uh, Calvinists out there. So, yeah, but they're fairly odd too.

But anyways, all right, Josh, thanks for giving us a call. Yeah. Tell Rich, thanks for putting me through.

Uh, he, he, he's going to owe me later on. So, and if he can hit me back on Twitter, I'm the

Aeon hip hop guy. If he can send me that dividing line you were just talking about, that would be awesome. Uh, he says he can't find it, but I know it's in there somewhere because I remember doing it.

So it was, it was open phone. So it may have just been a phone call. Maybe it didn't get noted. I don't know. All right.

Thanks, Josh. Thank you. All right. God bless. Uh, all righty.

Uh, for some reason, my, uh, there we go. My screen froze there for a second.

Well, we made it through and it is another big band of thunderstorms heading our direction here. Uh, yeah, yeah, there you go.

Uh, so we'll, we'll see. There's some, there's some active weather heading our direction.

There's no toys about it. Thanks. Listen to the voting line. I think we should be fairly straightforward next week.

And then that's it for a while because I'm teaching in, uh, Zurich and Kiev. Please don't forget

South Africa coming up. Um, and we need your help in getting down there for those debates and, uh, that ministry there, which is always a wonderful time.

I'm going to be gone about, uh, five weeks out of the next eight, uh, overseas.

That's tough on me. So I'd appreciate your prayers for help as well. So, uh, we'll talk to you more about that next week.