← Back to sermon library

Our father in heaven, thank you very much for this time that we can gather together. We thank you for your goodness to us. We thank you for our brother Richard Barcelos. We pray for your blessing upon him as he presents this material. We thank you that you have given gifts to the church, Lord Jesus Christ, for for our benefit, for our growth, for our understanding of the the truth of the Bible. Again, we just pray that all of this would be for your glory, for your honor, as well, for the sanctification of our own souls and and lives according to that truth, for salvation of sinners in our churches, and for the continual growth in the things of of the Lord God most high. Forgive us for all of our sins. Guide us by your spirit. We pray this in Jesus name. Amen. >> Well, we just finished up the doctrine of justification by James Buchanan. And then we made uh the decision to do some biblical theology before Buchanan. We spent some time on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the various books, Scott Swain, Fred Sanders, u Steve Wellum. So back in 19 or 1990, um 20 2020, I'm sitting in the presence of the ancient one, so I thought of the 1990s, but in 2020, we were scheduled to do this. And then that was the weekend that CO not broke out but the madness broke out. So it's been a long delay but we're thankful to have you with us. So go ahead and tell us what you want. Wow. Cam Porter. [laughter] So um writing books can be painful. I always um have outside readers help me. So with this book, Pastor Butler was one of the outside readers. And to this day, I still have pains in my soul because of the mean-spirited comments in the margins. One of one of the comments was, "This is the longest sentence I've ever seen in my life." [laughter] And uh he he was right. Um, but in all seriousness, um, why did I write this book? Okay. Well, that's a good question. You know, most books that I write come from either a perceived weakness in myself. Well, always always a perceived weakness in myself. Unable to clearly articulate something that I think is important and then I stumble across the subject for whatever matter. You know, like the Lord's Supper book, I was asked to give one lecture on the Lord's Supper as a means of grace in 2011. The lecture was delivered in 2011, but they asked me in 2008 or nine, I think, to do it. So, I just started devouring material on it. I'm going, "Wait a minute. I I didn't get this. I didn't understand this correctly." Well, the same thing happened with me actually in the early 1990s. I started preaching a series of sermons on the doctrine of man and I stopped at the at the fall right before the fall because I was reading Turin on the covenant of works and I was really fuzzy on the covenant of works and I I don't know if Jim remembers he was there he was probably a teenager back then but um I stopped the series I didn't I didn't and I never picked it up it's because I was fuzzy on the covenant of works and so it took me a while to you know I started started reading GK Beal and Gardis Voss and John Owens misnamed biblical theology and all those things and it started putting scripture together and so it was books that I read in the 1990s that really provided a good foundation for um the garden book. So, so the two things I wrestled with um not in terms of believing them, I did um but articulating them and then writing articulating them in a way that's convincing. Now, when I say convincing, I say con I mean convincing to me. I don't know what other authors do, but I write to convince myself of whatever I'm arguing for. And um the two issues were the covenant of works and the Sabbath and how those are related. [snorts] So so the more I started reading the more I realized, man, there's a lot going on in Genesis 1 through3. And then I I have a friend, mutual friend of Pastor Butler and and Kim, I think David Charles in the late 90s. He he calls me. I've known David Well, I've known Jim longer than David, but known David a long time since the ' 90s, mid 90s, I think. He he calls me from Toledo, Ohio, and he says, "I got some cassette tapes you need to listen to." I said, "Okay, David, send him over." Cuz he always had books for me to read and cassette tapes for me to listen to and all that stuff, but they're they're always good. So, it was GK Beal, uh, The Temple and the Church's Mission in in cassette form. >> Did I ever loan those to you? No, you had already moved, Jim. You already defected. That's right. you had already inflicted me with a wound that still bears pain. Um, selfish brute. Um, so yeah, so I listen to those Beal things and I'm going, "Oh man, this is huge." And that book, I don't know when it came out, but when it came out, of course, I devoured it. And I started reading everything Bill I stopped reading everything Bill has published at some point, but at that point, this is 25 years ago, I just started devouring that kind of stuff, biblical theology books and things like that. And at some point in the two early 2000s after we moved back to California, I told my wife, I'm going to I'm going to preach two sermons on creation. It's really important. And I had some lectures in my biblical theology course on the importance of of you know getting the garden right without the title. And um so I developed these lectures into yeah two sermons. I think it ended up being 22 sermons >> and that became um better than the beginning. The book better than the beginning was actually sermons originally and then some of those developed into lectures. Some of them some of the sermons actually came from lectures and then some of the sermons I I I uh beefed them up and put them in into lecture form. At some point Tom Ascll comes to me. Well, I can remember when he started coming to me, he wanted me to do a second edition of a book that I that I they published for me when I was way too young. I shouldn't have shouldn't have published the book. Um, what was the name of that book? In defense of the Decalog. >> Yeah. So, he says, uh, we want a second edition. We want a second edition. So, I I said this was when I was in Kentucky. So this was between 2006 and 2011. And I just kept saying, "Too busy, too busy. Give me a few years. Give me a few years." Well, one year I was in Texas speaking with Dr. James Renan, who I speak with often at conferences. I think this one will be our ninth or tenth over the years. Um, we were down there at a founders conference and I was speaking and during the Q&A a guy raises his hand and I said, "Yes, sir." It was Kin Polls. He He's down with Tom Ascal down at Grace uh Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida. He stood up and he said, "Dr. Ascal wants to know when we can expect the second edition of In Defense of the Decalog." And I just looked gave him a look. Everybody laughed and I I pointed at him. I said, "You tell them 2014 or whatever." And so I had this deadline finally. And so I started looking at the old manuscript and I'm just I had documents uh yeah se separate documents in my computer on it and I'm just going this is this is not good. This is not deep enough. This just doesn't get to the to the core issues that I think are really important where where where new covenant theology and progressive covenantalism now goes wrong. Uh and I think [clears throat] where they go wrong is is at the covenant of works and the divine rest. So I called him. I had this projected table of contents. It was 29 chapters. And he said, "Uh that's that's too long." So, in my thinking at the time, I I told him, I said, 'Look, if I live long enough, I'll do two books. I'll do one that concentrates on the covenant of works and the divine rest because I think there's there's enough in there and in the Bible and in the tradition to have something of substance. And then the other one will trace uh the covenant of grace, you know, Genesis 3:15 out throughout the rest of scripture. Of course, I never wrote that second book. um they published Sam Renahan's the mystery of Christ after that and I thought I don't have to write that second book. So he told me to reduce you know reduce the the table of contents and um he didn't like the initial title. Cam, you remember the title of the first the first title I gave? Getting the garden wrong. And then Cam did the remember the you did a a a cover for us. Remember that? He Cam poor guy. He's so old doesn't even remember this stuff. Cam did a cover for it. It was Getting the Garden Wrong, a critique of New Covenant Theology or something like that. And I liked his cover better. and they turned it down and they get this effeminite cover. I don't like this cover myself. I think it's squirly and girly, but um so I wrote it to address those two issues. Um what um what is the covenant of is there a covenant of works? What is it? How does the confession >> Hey, Rich. >> Yeah. >> We we just have a real quick image to show. Can you just wait one second? the initial cover. >> No, >> you got it. Whim. >> Yeah. >> Okay, hang on. [laughter] >> I don't see anything. >> I can't see it. >> It's the one with you and >> Oh. >> Oh, hey. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Who [laughter] did that? Some guy from the Philippines did that. I think. >> Okay, you can continue. [laughter] >> He's children. [clears throat] >> So, um, so anyway, I don't know where I was. The cover. Yeah, the covenant. Okay, so the covenant of works is the first part. Well, actually, the first part of the book, um, I don't even know what the preface says or the introduction. Oh, the introduction is okay. I always do this. I lay my methodological cards on the table. Um I I tell you what the book's how it's structured. Uh why it's important. Well, this isn't the methodological cards. That's right. I just tell you what why the book I think it's important, how it's structured, and why you should read it. But at some point in the um there it is. Chapter 2 is is a very important chapter. the importance of hermeneutics and theological formulation. That's where I lay my cards on the table. And I normally do that in in books that I write. um almost I can't think of one maybe in defense of the decalogue I I didn't do that but all other books that I author myself I I try to do that show the method uh whereby I got to my conclusions the hermeneutics um the theological method how how you take you know texts of scripture and you put them together you combine them they they're they're self-elilluminating they're mutually illuminative or whatever that word is, the analogy of scripture, the analogy of faith, uh the use of creeds and confessions as good uh hedges. Um you know, the best minds of the Christian church have articulated Christian doctrine a certain way and I'm I'm not here to reinvent that kind of stuff. So I I I think the method whereby we study Genesis 1 through3 is is very important. Matter of fact, there's a quote in the book that says, "We we must understand Moses in Genesis 3 through the lens of Paul in Romans 5." You know, something like that. And you know, when you first read those kind of things, you go, "Well, I don't need Well, you might not say this, but you you're better taught than I was. Why do I need Paul? Moses didn't have Paul. Nobody had Paul until Paul wrote. Moses can stand on his own. I'll just read Genesis 3 all by itself. Now, the problem with that is the themes in that Moses writes about in Genesis 3 are quite often picked up by other scripture writers. Um, just yesterday I was reading John Owen and he says um he he identified something that Moses wrote and then he said something like as do his as to do his expositors the prophets or as say the his expositors, the prophets. >> You know, a statement like that, I used to just read over it. Now I I tweet it and I put it in my lecture notes and I'm going to it's going to make a sermon. >> What he just said was this. Moses wrote, you know, Moses is the theological foundation of the Old Testament in one sense. um what Moses wrote, you know, the penetude, the five books, and then the the psalms and and the wisdom literature and and especially the prophets, well, all of them, they pick up on themes that Moses first reveals, and they um and they exedute it. It's inner biblical exesus or something like that. It's what I say is it's the word of God on the word of God. And when you have the word of God on the word of God, you have the word of God on the word of God. I probably said that last year at the conference. I'll probably say it in April, God willing, if I'm there. But it's very important. How does the rest of scripture pick up the themes that we find in Genesis uh 1 through3? And does it does it do that? Number one, yes. Number two, where throughout the Old Testament in various places and in various ways. And then certainly our Lord does it as well. and then his writing uh instruments, the apostles and the apostolic men, the other writers of the New Testament that weren't apostles. So that's my method. I try to allow scripture to interpret scripture. And when you do that, this covenant of works emerges. Um and then this divine rest that that is an an exemplar for the image bearer um to to imitate uh that is complete a work and then enter into this consumate rest uh which of course Adam didn't do because he sinned and this is actually what Christ does. And here's the subtitle of the book, by the way. Adam's work and God's rest in light of in light of Christ. I think that's very important. By the way, the title is not mine. It's Tom Asclls. He always boasts about that. So, I'll just give him the credit. Um, but so is the cover. He liked the cover. So, he liked the girly cover and he had a good title. I liked the the better cover and the the lesser title. But go Adam's work and God's rest in light of Christ. I mean, those are those are huge themes. You know, when you finally view the garden like scripture does as some sort of special dwelling place of God with his people, you know, um you can hear Puritan say the first church state or something like that. um because it was it was it was a place where God manifested himself um to Adam and Eve, God's people in God's place under God's rule is somebody's somebody's famous statement. Um so when you see that and then you go and read, you know, you read um Romans 5 and you see the Christ Adam Christ typology there and and then you see where Paul calls Adam the second man or the the the last Adam which is very interesting. He doesn't call him the second Adam. He calls him the last Adam. Some surmise that he calls him the last Adam because there's the first Adam and then there's other atommites or atomlike figures uh throughout scripture which is interesting to tease out um and various people do that. I don't think I did that in this book. But uh when you see all that stuff, you see that whatever Adam failed to attain, it was better than his created state because if he already had it, uh he then he didn't fail to attain it. He was endowed with it. So Adam had an esquetology. Adam had a goal to reach. Adam had a um a glorious state to arrive at by virtue of his obedience as the instrumental cause of of his glorification. You know, God being the God is the efficient cause. Of course, Adam doesn't cause it. No creature would cause Adam to be glorified like the tree of life. It didn't have like medicinal value, pharmaceutical power or something like that. Um, it was God. God would have rewarded Adam's obedience with glory uh if he didn't fail his probation. And how long the probation was, you know, we don't know. We just know that it was a probationary period. So when you start, you know, thinking deep about all that stuff, you you immediately go to Christ. The better you know your Old and New Testaments, the more the themes kind of just jump out. And so I I view this book, Getting the Garden Right, as Better Than the Beginning on Steroids. I remember when this book came out, one of the ladies in my church said, "Pastor, I want to read your new book." And I said, "Have you read Better than the Beginning?" She said, "No." I said, "Read that one first." And she she's she's a Livewire Dominican, so she says, "You think I'm stupid?" Uh, and I said, "No. Um, but it'll make getting the garden right a lot easier to read and understand if you do that. I'm just suggesting. Um, so the rest the the the largest section of the book is is the second part on God's rest and I do various kind of the similar thing. I show you what the confession teaches and then I I start the scriptural tour on the divine rest. I start in the garden of course and I show you how Moses at times views this rest uh some of the word how the words are used in various contexts you know in the fourth commandment and elsewhere and then um how the old testament and the new but primarily the old testament views this this almost like a coronation uh you know we have to use our language to depict the acts of god. So, um, don't think that I I think God actually has a head where a crown's put on it or something like that. But, but it's like a coronation, like the consummation of his work is the big thing of the first week of uh the world is not Adam and Eve, the sixth day. Okay. The big thing is actually the seventh day. Um, the divine rest is looked at as [clears throat] a sort of a coronation where you have a where you have a king who has subjects and and he's he's he's finished his work and now he is to be served by the subject and and since Adam is in God's image and he's in this place where he was not created. He was created outside the garden then put in the garden. Then the covenant of works is revealed to him. So this is the first sacred place, you know, sacred space where God is with his people in a special way. And and so the the rest actually signifies a a rest that man could have been um um grad could have graduated to by virtue of his his obedience to the stipulations, but he didn't. So it leaves, you know, it leaves us in a plight. Here we are not only creatures less than glorified, able to sin, able not to sin, but now we're we're guilty and polluted. And so either we exist that way or God devises a a way to remedy the problem. And that and the solution of course is the incarnation sufferings and glory of Christ which is first revealed to us in Genesis 3:15 by the way. So I'm just kind of uh rambling here. Are we going to open up to questions or can I go golfing? >> Does anybody have any questions? [clears throat] >> I I have one. Rich, perhaps you can just give us a a quick explanation of new covenant theology, which you know, what was the concern initially when you wrote In Defense of the Decalogue? >> Yeah. So, we had um and Jim knows these guys. We had a guy um two guys primarily brothers at our church and one of them got into on the internet. He got into hyper predtoism and new covenant [clears throat] theology at the same time and he was undercutting our confession and our some of the hymns we were singing. Uh and I found out about it. Um one of one another guy in the church on Sunday evenings was invited uh to this one guy's house, sit around the jacuzzi and do whatever guyy's doing. And so this one guy started spouting all this stuff and he's going, "Man, this is not what our pastor teaches. This is not our doctrinal statement." And he just felt burdened. He told the guys, "Guys, this isn't a good discussion. I'm out of here." And then called me that evening and just let me know. And so I started looking into all this stuff. And and by the time I got my hands around it, I had written a paper [clears throat] um critiquing it. And what it was is was um it was a denial, a lot of denials. A denial of the covenant of works. Uh number one, uh a denial of the Sabbath. Uh [clears throat and snorts] any perpetuity, perpetual moral principle in the fourth commandment. Um the the argument was something like this. The Sabbath came with Moses and it went with Moses. You know, uh case closed. and and the the the material I was reading was very um costic and pmical. Um I it it was just not all the material, most of it though by by one author and it was I'm just going wow this guy this guy's a lightning rod. This is why people like it because he's so he is gifted writer. He makes things seem to be so simple. Um, you know, he says things like, "I I don't know if if I'm Adam, I'm thinking I have a pretty good life. There's no sin in the world. There's sin in me. I got a perfect wife. That's a pretty good deal. I'm pretty happy, you know, and [laughter] and and you know, it's hard to disagree with that, but I'm going, but wait a minute. The Bible looks back on this and actually at least [clears throat] once explicitly calls it a covenant in Hosea and it was just causing trouble in our church. um not a lot of trouble but especially in this one guy and so I had to I had to address the issues and I so I think the issues not aren't aren't just just doctrinal like we just conclude different we do theology different and what's interesting about new covenant theology it's kind of developed into what men call progressive covenantalism now uh that would be Steve Wellum and the Southern Baptist guys uh the most the profess that teach at like Boyce College and Southern Seminary and other Southern Baptist seminaries, they're what what men now call progressive covenantalists, which I think is just an academic name for um New Covenant theology. they wanted to distance themselves from some of the bad nuances I guess of uh of the older version. But it so I I I address both those issues in this book both new covenant theology and in then it's more refined version uh progressive covenantalism. I think our our biggest issues are actually hermeneutical. And I think the progressive covenantalists are doing better than the older uh new covenant theology guys. For example, they'll say there's there's a there's a covenant of creation. Uh they don't like calling it a covenant of works. They haven't teased out all the esqueological implications of it in relation to the divine rest. Um, by the way, I found in the big fat Wellmum Gentry book on progressive covenantalism, Gentry makes a statement about about the divine rest. And he says something like, u, this signifies what man one day would enter into. And I'm going, well, yeah, that's right. Um, but he doesn't tease it out. He just says it, you know. Um, so I think I tried to challenge them in this book. It's good you're recognizing, you know, Hosea 6:7. Like Adam, they have violated or transgressed the covenant. Israel is like Adam. In what sense? Israel had a covenant, they violated. Adam had a covenant, they violated. Good. You're allowing that text to shed some interpretive uh light back onto the Genesis account. Now do that with the New Testament as well and do that with the Sabbath with the rest because once you do that you find that um um um our Lord for example entered into his rest once redemption was accomplished. and he entered into his rest when he entered glory or on the third day when he rose from the dead. Sufferings and glory. You know how in Luke twice in Luke 24 Jesus uh points to the Old Testament and says look this is this had to happen. The Christ had to suffer and then enter glory. The Christ had to suffer and then rise on the third day. Sufferings and glory. Glory then is a glory is a is a state of existence according to his human nature that's better than his initial state and it's the state into which we are going to be brought we're going to be brought to a glorious end or state and I argue that until that state is here there's an earthly symbol um there's an earthly uh symbol of that rest that's necessary as a as a constant reminder. And that's that's what the Lord's day is. It's it's the reminder to look back at the third day resurrection. The son of God entered his glory as the the forerunner of our glory and then it looks forward to that great glorious day when we will enter the same rest. So uh what was I doing? I was explaining um oh yeah I was explaining new covenant theology and progressive covenant riner who's a very wellrespected new testament guy um [clears throat] he says some things about the sabbath that are you know I need to be careful here but they are laughable it it when you've read enough from you know the reformation post especially post-reformation guys on this subject was not a minor issue it's a major issue for them but when you've read enough and then you read some contemporary that's trying to poke holes at it, you just go, "Come on, why did you write this, um, you haven't read enough to even engage the arguments. You don't even know what the arguments." It's similar to, in all due respect, Steve Wellum on the three-fold division of the law, which I I'm going to address the divine rest, uh the three-fold division of the law, the Sabbath, the three-fold division of the law, and I don't know, there might be another issue, maybe the covenant of works or something like that, um in in that book. Um but but Steve Wellum when he argues against the three-fold division of the law, he makes statements that that really expose his ignorance. Either he didn't understand what he read or he hasn't read the proper um um source primary sources. Both of those men reflect um something that's I don't think healthy. Um and that is a a lack of engaging primary sources. Um they'll just engage contemporary things and they don't get back to the you know I think the big dogs on the issue like like like Da Carson when he was a he had finished his graduates work this is a long time ago. He and a bunch of students got together and they put a book together called From Sabbath to Lord's Day and they were pushing against the confessional view of of the Sabbath which was the dominant view in the 17th century in in among the Puritans. And I remember I got the book a long time ago, never read it. But then I started reading it about 15 years ago and I'm going, "Wait, wait a minute." After a few chapters, I'm going, I'm going to go to the index. I went to the index and I looked up the name John Owen and it wasn't in there. And I thought, what? And they even have a chapter on the history of the of the of the doctrine. I'm going, you haven't you didn't even mention John Owen, let alone interact with him. Owen has a section in his Hebrews commentary in volume two. There's two introductory volumes. The second volume I think it is citation 4 of the Lord's day or something like that. It is I don't know how many times I've read that thing. It's probably not too long. Um but it's just really powerful. And I thought, how can you write a book against this um doctrine um and not read John Owen, you know? And and then there's that other guy, Bound, what's that guy's name? Something like that, who actually wrote before Owen. Owen's better than Bound, but Bound's like big fat thing on the Sabbath. And I read that thing and I thought if this was so foundational for a lot of the Puritans and it was this guy's treatment and you're writing a book, you know, using your pe your your straw to try to poke holes in it with a little pee. That's your ammo. Um, [clears throat] you need to go back and rethink it. So I I I think new covenant theology and progressive covenantalists rely on that book way too much because um Robert Martin um you know Dr. Robert Martin he was up there in Seattle for a long time. His book on the Sabbath treats every single text that uh he could find in the Old and New Testament that speaks to the subject. And he critiques that book over and over and over. And that's where I got the idea uh to critique that book. I don't I'm not as exhaustive as he was, but I I think these men, they're good men, but they're relying on secondary sources. Uh and they don't go to the primary sources and really wrestle with the, you know, the arguments like like for instance in Mark 2 when Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man and not man for for the Sabbath. So DA Carson says, uh, most commentators, you might even say most commentators by far believe that Jesus is referring back to creation here, but that's too tidy or that's too neat. You know, that's the DA Carson way. He's Canadian, isn't he? Yeah, I think he is. Uh, so, you know, DA Carson, that's just too cute. It's just too tidy. uh um Jesus is not that tidy on this issue or something like that. I'm just going what? That's a that's a kind of cavalier way to dismiss what seems to be a clear statement that makes man and Sabbath relatively speaking co-extensive in terms of their, you know, duration, how old they are. Uh man came first and then God gave him a Sabbath for his benefit. It just seems kind of clear, you know. Um, so anyway, those are those are some of the things that I think need to be addressed and I address those some of those things in this book and and uh that other book that nobody knows about that I told you about that you're going to forget I told you this um is going to address a lot of issues in more in more depth. Uh for instance, they're they're starting to do this thing on Romans 2, you know, where Romans 2 says the law was written on the heart. It seems to be uh Jews and Greeks, Gent just man as an image bearer has some sort of something that we can call, you know, the law written on his heart. That's well, they're taking that uh in a new direction now. They're saying, well, that's not referring to creation necessarily. It's just referring to Gentiles who are now in the new covenant. Uh which is probably not novel. I'm sure somebody has taken that because the language law written on the heart, you know, goes back uh to uh Jeremiah 31, but now they're taking that against the traditional reformed view. And and you might say, well, what's the big deal? You know, they're just progressive governmentalists. Well, you ever heard of Crossway? It's like the number one of the largest Christian publishers in the world. They they publish these guys. Uh, and so they have all the big publishers and they influence a lot of pastors. And for instance, listen to this. This is Romans 3:19 and 20. Now, we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. For by the law is the knowledge of sin. I'm sure your pastors have quote that quite often. Okay. Now, we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law. So, Ken Gentry, uh, wait a minute, it's not Ken Gentry. What's Steven Well, man, >> Peter Gentry, >> Peter, Peter, Peter Gentry. Peter Gentry has published um these little books. I have at least one of them. And he has this treatment of Romans 3:19. And what he he he tries to define what it means to be under the law. And he says what's very clear is only the Jews were under the Mosaic law. So he he takes this and he says well but it says every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. And then he views ancient Israel as an Adamlike figure representative of the entire world. What? That's kind of interesting because then they're like a model for us that we too are guilty or something like that. It's almost like they are exemplars that all the rest of us follow it. We're not under the law. Only the Jews were under the law. Okay. So, he does that stuff. And I it it I almost I almost when I read that, you know, fell out of my chair, but I I thought to myself, I I started texting the guys that were working on this book together. I I I thought to myself, man, I couldn't have written it better. That's a that's going to give me something to quote and chew on. I can I can go to I don't know, 50 commentaries on Romans and nobody's going to say what you said. It's a novelty. And I think a lot of times they do. They pull these exogetical rabbits out of their hats and they're they're novelties and they fit their so-called system which I I think when you poke at it, the system is not very systematic after after all it actually it actually destroys major parts of scripture that are glorious to see like the divine rest. Christ entered into his rest. Christ entered into his glory. We have we will one day um uh enter into the glory of our Lord. Let's see where is that tit we're at Titus. Is it 2 Thessalonians? It's second Thessalonians. It's early in the morning. It's second Thessalonians in the New Testament. Yeah, there it is. Oh, here here it is. It's 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and 14 to But we are [clears throat] bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the spirit and belief in the truth to which he called you by our gospel. Now watch this. for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now we don't this is the Lord Christ as John Owen would call him. I think I first saw this interpretation in Owen many many years ago. I didn't think much of it, but Owen and others make the point that this this glory of our Lord Jesus Christ is something that all believers in the gospel will will obtain. They're going to obtain a status that the Lord Jesus Christ according to his human nature arrived at or was blessed with by virtue of his obedience and fulfilling his probation. And he's going to confer that same status on us. Philippians 3 says that by, you know, by the power uh that he that he has over all things, he's going to execute that power, it's going to terminate on us. It's going to we're going to be brought to glory uh this glorious state. Well, when that rest, that initial divine rest symbolizes that and and it's never arrived at by anyone um uh [clears throat] until the son of God incarnate arrives at it according to to both his soul and body. Um I mean that's a that's a pretty huge thread in the scriptures. That's that's big that makes the resurrection kind of important. You know >> what is the resurrection? It's the it's the entry of the son of God, the mediator into um the age to come as its first or primary citizen. And it's a symbol that all who are Christs will enter into that as well. And just as the initial Sabbath pointed to that rest, so the Christian Sabbath points back to Christ entering it and forward to us entering it it >> and that weekly uh reminder is a blessing from God. That's why, by the way, we should we should revolve our weeks around the Lord's day and not the Lord's day around our week. Why? Because it's the best of days. because we do the best of things that [snorts] are most like the escaton the the eternal state. So I don't know what the question was but that's my answer. [clears throat] >> I I just have a quick question and yes yes or no would suffice. I've been meaning to ask this for probably 15 years and I this is a good time. Do you think Thomas Makomsky and William Dumbrell were prototypical progressive covenantalists? probably did the same thing. >> They sort of did the same kind of thing. >> What? See what Jim's doing here. Here's what he's doing. Okay, here here's here's here's your pastor. I've known him since 1990. He's actually subtly getting under my skin cuz I made him read bad books in the 1990s. [laughter] Right. That's what you're doing. That's what you're saying. That's what I'm hearing. >> No, no, no, no, no. >> Why do you hate me? [laughter] >> Show some respect. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that I think you're right. A lot of the stuff, and you read some of this stuff, a lot of it, same stuff I read um in the '9s, was was good, but it left something. There was something that wasn't there. And so when Beal came in and I'm going, "Wait a minute, Beal." Especially when he moved to Westminster Seminary, I'm going, "He's got to be a conf I hope he's a confessional guy on this stuff. Excuse me." And then when he came out with his uh what's that massive 8,000page be book, >> New Testament Biblical Theology. >> A New Testament biblical Theology. He's got a section or two in there where he he does a really good job I thought on the divine rest and I I leaned on it and and started reading some of the arguments he had there. So I was excited about that. Okay, Beiel's doing it. Um >> and then of course I do it. Fes Fesco kind of does it um in his what's that book Fesco wrote? >> First last things first that >> Yeah. Last Things First or First Things Last or Last Things First, I think. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that that was a helpful book. Um there there's a really good book, by the way, by Guy Waters, Crossway. Okay. Crossway published a book on the Lord's Day by Guy Waters, and it's really good. He he he needed to read my book on Hebrews 4, but uh I'll give him a pass. Uh it's it's he really crosses all the tees and dots all the eyes like a good Westminster confession guy and he's a sweet soul. I I've met him before, spoken at a conference with him and he's just a gracious southern gentleman. So there are guys that are writing and fascinatingly Crossway published that book. I was very surprised. I actually sent him a an email. Dr. Waters, Rich Barcelus, read your book. Devoured it. Great. Thank you. Uh surprised that Crossway would publish it, but they did. which is cool. So maybe they'll start publishing other stuff. I don't know. >> Okay. >> Yes. Is that good? Is that a good yes or no answer? >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you. >> So thank you, Pastor Rich. Um my question is how did we get here? Like Da Carson writing in the8s or even earlier. Um, where did that generation of thought come from in terms of new covenant theology? Weren't the majority of 19th century theologians particularly within the reformed or Calvinist circles still of a a kind of sabotarianism that would have had its origins in 17th century 18th century thought. So what what led to a generation like DA Carson >> to to take the direction that they did? Was it the culture around it? Was it society? Was there theological pressures pushing them that direction? Yeah. Well, that's a that's a good question. What what I I think there's a multi multiplicity of of things happening at the same time. I'll go back to at least the the enlightenment. Um in the 18th century, this tendency within academic circles to deny um divine providence took root and scripture was viewed as a textbook like any other textbook. uh a book on ancient the ancient history of the Jews and the ancient history of the first century Christians and it's to be handled uh by scientists in a laboratory just like anything else is to be handled by scientists in a laboratory it's just a book like any other book and when you do that you lose uh the sense of uh divine inspiration now I'm not saying DA Carson did okay but I think this this affected when you lose divine inspiration. You don't have the word of God anymore. You know, if if God is not providentially active and um using prophets and apostles to say what wants them to say, uh then it's just uh it's just a man book. It's just horizontal and it's to be interpreted and handled like anything else. Well, before the Enlightenment, that's not the way scripture viewed. Scripture was viewed as the written word of God, caused by God to be preserved by God and then taught by God. Nobody can really understand what the scriptures uh intended meaning by God is unless God tinkers with their minds and hearts. Okay? So that's that's that's precritical. You know, that's ancient up until the Enlightenment. Almost all Christians viewed the Bible that way. Well, when you take the Bible out of the realm of divine inspiration and just make it a book, the method that you use to study it uh is is borrowed wholesale from, you know, just other other uh interpretive methods, you know, like you would interpret Mark Twain or something, you know, you'd identify the genre and you you you'd read the background material to Twain's life to see if you know, he had an uncle who beat him over the head with a club or something and and that's why he wrote a certain novel or whatever it is. And um so that background became the you know for us as Christians in the modern era became you know the background material almost became front and [snorts] center that you can't understand texts unless you understand background. So and then pastor Butler knows this and pastor Cam knows this as well. It's very frustrating reading commentaries like I'm sorry picking on the Canadian DA Carson's commentaries with all kinds of background stuff and I'm just going I got hurting bleeding souls I need to preach the Bible to in two days and you're telling me what size of sandal Paul wore or whatever you know stuff like that and so um I I I think that the the enlightenment caused a method of scriptural interpretation that was just uh theistic at best and sometimes atheistic and but Christians didn't realize it. So there was a depreciation for um historical theology. We we we didn't want to listen to older theologians and a whole generation or and a half at least from about the 1950s [sighs] or so all the way to 2000ish. Um so what three generations of scholars were groomed who did not um appreciate historical theology uh the creeds and confessions uh because of this more modern so-called objective way of looking at scripture and I I think that that caused um guys like DA Carson to depreciate um not to appreciate properly what the church has wrestled with and and put too much stock in their own work. I think that's I think there's a subtle I'm not saying DA Carson is this, but some it appears to me that some moderns there's this subtle uh arrogance. You know, we have computers, we can go do CtrlF. Is that the search? I don't even know how to do a search like that. But I have to call Cam all the time and text him. How do you do that thing? Show me one time. Um, you know, we have lexicon. By the way, look at we have lexicons or we have dictionaries, you know, Hebrew and Greek dictionaries. Lexicons. I can use lexicons. I don't need to read Matthew Henry or I don't read need to read John Gil. I can just look up the words in my lexicon. Um, you know, I don't need those influences. And I'm going, now hold on, wait a minute. Was John Gil a Christian? Was Matthew Henry a Christian? Yes. Do you know who put most likely put put at least the initial lexicans that I had who who put those lexicans together? Those Hebrew and Greek dictionaries. Damned Germans. Okay. Unbelieving liberal scholars. And so, um, I'm going to allow, you know, a dictionary by an unbeliever to influence my interpretation of scripture, but I'm not going to go old author. Well, is that's the method that that some people >> didn't didn't you refer to them as hell hell enduring liberal scholars from the 20th century [laughter] >> in one of your most moments. Yeah. Yeah, you did. Oops. >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. This isn't being recorded, is it? >> Not that part. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I I say that to the students all the time. You know, we we boast about I just me and my Bible. I'm going to have a Bible and I'm going to have my notebook and I'm going to have my, you know, my whatever my Hebrew lexicon so I can look up the words myself and their meanings and get really deep. I'm not going to allow any presuppositions to cloud my interpretation of scripture. That's just so naive. Everyone has a pre presuppositions. Everyone comes to every text with assumptions and so why not try to find the best assumptions >> since we already do it. Don't act as if we don't do we can't do it. Okay. By the way, you assume the English alphabet every time you come to the Bible. I mean you don't consciously do it. You don't sit there going I am assuming the English alphabet. It has 24 or 26 26 26 letters. And when you put when you put letters together in a certain form, after a while it trains a whole culture to sound to to, you know, to make the sound the same every time. And then when you put enough letters together in a certain order, it makes a lexim. And then you can add things to lexims like prefixes and suffixes and make a whole word out of it. And then when you put a word with another word, it's called a phrase. And then when you have a a non-predication [snorts] large phrase, it's called a cl, you know, all that stuff. phrase, a word, a phrase, a clause, a sentence, a paragraph, a paricopee, a paricopy. I called it a paragope, all that stuff. You assume all that. [clears throat] And by the way, you you bring other assumptions as well to texts. And so what what I what I think happened was a method of doing exesus a new hermeneutic came in that would not have produced by the way the nying creed the calcedonian statement my favorite one the athanasian creed or our confession of faith or the rich uh himnity that's in for instance in your trinity himnel I mean next time you guys sing a hymn from Think about hermeneutics. How did this poetic author get to this conclusion? How did he write? How could he write this? What's behind it? Well, he's using what we call a precritical hermeneutic where he is allowing his theology to to um to be a hedge around his interpretation of certain themes of scripture. And without it, he wouldn't have written what he wrote. you know, you know, you can say, "Well, when you're writing hymns, you can just be loose uh and and free and all that stuff." And I'm going, "No, then I don't want to sing that hymn. >> I want to have doctrinally rich, thick hymns." So, um anyway, that's that's what I think happened. And it it didn't happen like consciously like Da I'm not picking on DA Carson. You're a modernist DA Carson. Um, but I I think he is I you know when it's time to re be really theological and precise, DA Carson is not. And and since that name came up, I I can say Tom Shriner it is not. Rich Barcel tries to be okay, but these guys are not when it's tight. And Steven Wellm, by the way, I I I've got some quotes by him where I'm just going, it's time for you to drill down and be very clear here and get down to the principle, the thing from which these other things come and and and and you don't do it. And I think it's because of the way they were trained. you know, we have to be, you know, there's this movement called the theological interpretation of scripture, kiss. It's kind of all over the map and all that stuff, but uh what it basically says is it recognizes that the Bible is the written word of God. It it has within itself some indications of how it is to be read. We don't just bring our theory of reading the Bible, interpreting the Bible wholesale from outside the Bible. We look at the Bible and we ask the Bible questions like what are you? It's the the written word of God. Why are you you know well first the first question is is it you know the question of ontology does it have being yes the second question is what is it a question of quiddity or I remember I used to say quiddity it's quiddity what does that mean? What is it? What what are we dealing with? It's the written word of God caused by God to be preserved by God over time and taught by God. I mean that's pretty important. Why is it you know TIS theological interpretation of scripture asks these kind of questions. Why do we have a Bible? What is its teology? What is its goal? What is it why what does it aim to do with the information that it conveys? It its aim is this. Um I think it John Owen put it like this. God will have sinners in communion with him. >> Why why do we have a Bible to give us the necessary information to get us to glory? >> And then how does the Bible go about conveying that information that's sufficient if believed to bring us to glory? And and that's where, you know, biblical theology comes in. So, I I I like the the TIS movement and some of these some of these men that um you know are very useful in in very many areas that I've mentioned uh would call themselves you know kind of piss kind of guys. Um but again I I think that um that that they you'll see that in the book in the getting the garden right book. I said I commend them for going a c certain distance on some of these doctrines, but I try to push them, hey, be more consistent. Use your method. Use the method you're using on the covenant with God and Adam. Use that on the divine rest, and you'll be forced to come up with a different conclusion than an anti-sabotarian view of the Lord's day. >> There's a question from Aiden online. Um, >> oh, no, no questions from Aiden. >> I'm kidding. >> Hi, Dr. Barcelis. Uh, >> can y'all hear me? Okay. >> Yes. [clears throat and cough] >> Um, Dr. Barcelis, I had a question um relating more to the covenant of works and that part of the book. Uh, how would you explain the concept or or rather the biblical truth maybe of of legal guilt to someone who does not have a reformed background. Uh, I'm working with someone who struggles with the idea that we are guilty of someone else's sin. Uh, I've tried to explain from Romans 5 and other parts of scripture, but they have a different perspective and they can't get on board with that. So, how would you explain that in a way that sounds, I don't know, convincing or >> Yeah, >> it's so the the doctrine of original sin >> and the guilt. >> Um guilt is the just liability uh unto punishment. When we're guilty of something, it's not just that we, you know, feel like one of my sons used to say, beeping in my heart. Guilt is uh a guilt is the just liability unto punishment that we have incurred either by our own transgressions or by the transgressions of another who stood for us. And that's you know that's where this person probably has a problem is the the federal or covenantal standing of of Adam. Do they believe that Adam was the head of the human race? That Adam was appointed by God as a representative and that as Adam went, so went the rest of the human race. If Adam sins, God threatened judgment upon him. He would die. Uh he would be not have the communion he had. He would not have, you know, all that stuff. And and God also threatened that that same thing would happen to all Adamites. you know, I would just explain it that way and say, you know, we don't have to like it, but that doesn't make it not true. So, uh, but you're not going to convince the person, you know, with clever argumentation. Just give them the scriptural arguments, give them the confessional arguments, and pray like crazy, him or her. I don't know if it's a >> man or a woman. So, I I don't I don't think there's a like a golden key to convince somebody. You just >> Well, it's also you could also add on to that that >> do you want Christ's righteousness to be on your behalf? >> The same way. So you don't want Adam's guilt, then you don't get Christ righteousness. >> Yeah. And and sing him a bunch of hymns, too. There's a thy blood and righteousness. That's a good one. My beauty are my glorious dress. Yeah, I've uh well, I've I've been raised and I mean I I don't I don't know if you know this, but I I grew up going to TRBC in Lam Marada and uh I've just grown up in reformed churches my whole life and it's so clear to me and for people who don't uh understand and particularly this one person, I I you're right, there's a point where I just pray about it. Um, but I I've done I feel like I've done all I can to explain and there comes a point where I'm like I I don't know anymore. So, >> Sean has a question and I'm struggling to to formulate it, but given that we uh usually think when we're thinking of typology, we usually think of um yeah, Old Testament types fulfilled in Christ or in the new creation. uh thinking of the Jewish Sabbath uh being a Old Testament type fulfilled in the new creation. What is the status of the Lord's day in relation to typology? Is it something different? And is there something are there other things that would be in a similar category? My mind immediately goes to uh [snorts] to marriage as another one that seems to be somewhat similar. Is that [clears throat] >> um the typology of the Lord's day? >> Well, usually types come from the Old Testament. >> Uh-huh. >> So, what is what is the Lord's Day? How do we think of that? >> Yeah. Well, if if you um if you read the book, I think you'll get the answer that I I I think right um The divine rest. Okay. The [snorts] divine rest was an uh is an esqueological signifying uh a state of existence man could enter into by virtue of [snorts] Adam's passing his probationary status under the covenant of works. Um so so that um so that that that points to the eternal state ultimately. So what the Lord's day does is it picks up on on that symbolism and it says um the last Adam has entered that rest on behalf of others and and yet like marriage um you know marriage uh is a creation ordinance that goes from the beginning all the way to end the end of >> uh the the old creation we'll call it when when Christ comes again. So similar to marriage and I would say labor you know um it was instituted at creation. It had a had typological aspects to it. It's still with us until the escaton. Marriage is with us until the escaton and a weekly Sabbath is with us to to the escaton until the escaton. So, uh, it picks up on the creational ordinance of Sabbath and it says it's been fulfilled in the person and work of Christ. Um, it's already for him, but it's not yet for us. And until the not yet comes in its fullness, there is a weekly reminder um of it on on the first day of the week. So, I'm not sure if that kind of scratches where you reach. And >> yeah, [clears throat] >> I have a question. When is your book, Tracing the Covenant of Grace, coming out? >> Uh, I doubt I'll ever write it. I have various writing projects. That's not one of them. Um, although I do have a desire to develop my lectures on Genesis 3:15. I had like 50 or 80 pages or something like that in my biblical theology course on on uh Genesis 3:15. So, I I might do that, but I I doubt I'll write a full covenant theology book or something like that. I used to think I was should do that, but the older I get, the more I realize um there's a lot of good stuff that's already out there, you know. Um [clears throat] have you read >> I did lectures on that. Go ahead. >> I'm just curious. >> I was gonna say I did go ahead Jim. Go ahead. >> That that Harrison Perkins book. Did you have you read that the covenant book? >> Which one? >> It's a big big covenant reformed covenant theology. >> So, >> yeah, I haven't read the covenant theology. I have it. We're going to interact with with his book. >> Uh, but the other book by mentor um Christian focus mentor >> um I forgot the name of it, righteousness or something like that. M >> I I've read that one because he critiques um 1689 federalism in there and I think he he gets us wrong. He paints us in a really bad light. And my good friend John Fesco follows um Harrison on that on that issue. And I actually endorsed a book. It's going to be a big fat like 500page book on prleomina by John Fesco. It's really helpful except for an atrocious footnote >> where he sides where he sides with Harrison on this. It's a really thorny issue deep down in the weeds, but it's an important issue. Um, and I and I told John, I said, "John, this is this isn't accurate [clears throat] and this it doesn't help your argument. I would take this footnote out." And he texted back said, "I'll think about it." In a gracious way. He's not like, "I'll think about it." Um, so I I like Harrison. He seems to be a nice guy and all that stuff, but he, you know, many years ago he was texting or sending emails to me and another guy trying to get a handle on what men call 1689 federalism and and uh because he was going to critique it and he wanted to make sure he got it right. And he did. in on the issue I'm talking about is um can we distinguish between Adam as created and Adam in in the covenant of works and and he wants to make them basically co-extensive with you know he distinguishes but basically co-extensive and I argue um against that that the confession and the the catechisms the larger catechism especially I think it's the larger catechism They put the covenant of works as revelation within divine providence not creation within divine providence in the garden. Adam was given the covenant of works revealed the covenant of works was revealed to him in the garden. So, so you can hear old like it's in my book um which Harrison sites uh in disagreement and he wrote a whole book basically trying to argue this stuff and and it's like I'm just going really it's in your own tradition. I got it from your guys. It's Westminster Confession 71 distinguishes Adam as a creature and the covenant of works as a above creation kind of thing. So anyway, I'm getting into the technical weeds there. So yeah, I have read the other one. I haven't read the big fat covenant thing, but I guess I have to now because we're going to go into print. I got to read all this stuff. all the stuff because I don't want to come out and and interact with this stuff and just, you know, based on two articles or something like that. So, I got I got a lot of work to do the rest of this year and I think next year to um beef up the the the chapters. I'm going to interact with the progressive covenantalists and pedaptists as well. more regarding that covenant of grace. >> So, I think you should consider writing a book tracing the covenant of grace because right now, who would we what book would we point someone to, especially if they're not necessarily a reformed Baptist, but they're interested? We do what book do we point to? There isn't one anymore that is available. And >> and so we're in a bit of a pickle in terms of introducing people to a 69 federalist way of understanding the whole of scripture >> and who can write that book and have it to us within 10 years. >> Yeah. Daniel Sh Daniel Schneider. So next year, God willing, Dr. Shider, he he might even be up there to the conference this year. I'm not sure. But next year, I think he's speaking. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. lean on him because I think he's going to take the covenant theology course over at IRBS and Daniel is um exceptionally gifted especially as a younger guy and is that guy reads a lot and so he would be one that I think would within the next 10 years that could produce something um well worth having. Also, I I I think maybe, you know, if we get this more technical book completed, maybe a few of the guys that are on the writing team for that project can just write a a basic introductory level 1689 federalism so-called thing. Um, for for for just the general audience, I I think that Brandon Adams actually has material he might be thinking of publishing someday. I'm I'm not sure. I know his videos are out there and they're they're really helpful. It's almost like Brandon lives for this stuff. By the way, 1689 Federalism was a title um that Brandon came up with. Um when both doctors Renahan Doctors Renahans or however that go and I were asked by Brandon to do those videos, you know, that was a long time ago. By the way, I still wear the same green shirt that I wore there. I I I probably have sweatshirts from the 1990s that I still wear. [clears throat] That's cuz that's cuz in in Palmdale, California, you only need a sweatshirt every third year. Um, but Brandon Brandon asked us to do those videos, gave us questions, you know, softball questions, and we we had time to think through the answers, and then he came and videoed us. And then at some point, he says, "I got to name my website. I I've got four possibilities. I like 1689 federalism the best. What do you think? And we just said, "It's your website. You know, do what you want." Well, when it came out, I had friends that were offended by it. One guy called me and said, "That's offensive. It's condescending. You're acting like, you know, we we're not 1689 Federalist if we're not confessional [clears throat] if we don't hold your view." And and I'm just going, what are you what are you talking about condescending? Brandon, it was Brandon's title and if you've ever met Brandon, he maybe comes across a certain way on the internet, but personally, I mean, he's a sweet sold guy. Uh, anyway, so I think somebody needs to write something on two levels. One would be, you know, like the level of getting the garden right. I think that would be helpful, but also a more introductory level. By the way, Pastor Butler, you initially you said I should take the second part of my book, the Sabbath section, and and redo it um and put the cookies on a lower shelf. I I I've thought about doing that someday. I I think that would be could be helpful, too. Um although there's a lot of good books on that on that issue. I'll I'll think about it. [clears throat] We got we got one more question and we don't want to keep you all Saturday. So we'll let we'll we'll end on this last question and I just want to say before that thank you for all that you have done this morning. It's been very encouraging, [snorts] very helpful. >> Yeah. Do you are you okay with this being posted online? Is that what we're >> Oh, >> or just made available to persons that ask? I don't want that uh mention of that book online. So, if you can cut that out, just cut that out if that's okay. >> Yeah, it doesn't need to be online. I mean, >> okay, Tyler, go ahead. >> Um our our Paleo Baptist brothers and sisters, they make a big deal about um circumcision. and how, if I'm understanding that correctly, how that doesn't terminate in the New Testament. Uh, rather it it basically changes. It morphs into baptism. Um, they make a big deal about that. Um, the Sabbath uh in Exodus 31 is called the sign of the um Mosaic Covenant. So, how would that how would we basically like I guess I'm trying to wrap my mind around if you're using how are we using different hermeneutics than the hayobaptists? Um, regarding the Sabbath or are we um because of the um how does the how does the Sabbath basically how does it not um terminate like you you know what I'm saying? Like how does the the covenant sign circumcision it terminates in Christ? It it it finds its fulfillment I think in Christ. Why wouldn't the Sabbath has the covenant sign of the Mosaic covenant? Why would it also find its terminus in Jesus? >> Yeah. Well, I I don't think that circumcision um finds its termination and therefore uh utter and absolute abrogation with the coming of Christ. I I think circumcision is a sign that signified regeneration and so its fulfillment is it what it points to is the circumcision made without hands. So, so that there still is circumcision that to which the original sign pointed um but there's an alteration. There's a transformation with the coming uh incarnation sufferings and glory of Christ. And I would argue the same thing with with uh Sabbath uh with priesthood with temple with sacrifices. Um, all of those things aren't terminated and therefore abregated with the coming of Christ. They're transformed. They're pointing to something that is now here. Um, so we still have priests. We still offer sacrifices. There's still a divine temple. Um, there's still a Sabbath. There's still circumcision. You know, those kind of things. in their in their transformed and we would say inaugurated new covenant. >> And if that's not a good answer, I'm sorry. [laughter] >> Read the book. >> Thank you again, Rich, for being with us this morning. I'll close in prayer and um yeah, Father, thank you for this time. Thank you for these encouraging things. Thank you for causing us to reflect upon and think through Adam and Christ. And we thank you for the Lord Jesus, that last Adam who does what is necessary to bring many sons to glory. We give praise to you for the Lord's day. We look forward to gathering together tomorrow to know the presence of the the Lord Jesus in the midst of the lampstands. We pray for all the churches represented here that you would be in the midst of your people that you would encourage and strengthen us. That you would be pleased to bless the preaching of the word that you would save sinners calling them out of darkness into marvelous light. And we ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen. >> Amen. >> Thank you for having me. See you in April. I'm