Shadows to Substance Conference 2023 Questions & Answers session

No, just sit where you want to. Well, we don't want the press man and the disc to be together. I'll sit in my gray.

I'll sit in my gray. We can do it together. Put them next to each other. We should have a contest.

Josh, if you can get on that end seat. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Josh is going to moderate this.

Pray for him. Yeah. Should there be a word for the best dressed?

I think it's bow tie hair. Best looking is one of these guys.

I'm not sure if we're going to be able to use the mic. I'm not sure if we're going to be able to use the mic. We just talk loud.

Is it being recorded? Yeah, right there. We can share the mic. We can share a mic.

We're not at Buffalo Wild Wings. We can share the mic as long as Pastor Jeff never gets it.

We can share the mic as long as Pastor Jeff never gets it. We can share the mic as long as Pastor Jeff never gets it. I just sat mine down. Well, that would be a seahorse.

Yeah, well. Whoops. We don't want the disc up here.

Alright, let's get started, guys. Thank you all for being up here. Thank you all for being up here.

So the first question we've got for you today, in the LSB translation of Colossians 2, 16 -17 we read,

Therefore, no one is to judge you in food, Sorry, my handwriting is to blame here.

Where are you at? Colossians 2, 16 -17. Oh yeah, here we go.

I'll give you all a second to turn. How come you always get to theonomy at end times? What's up with that?

It's a pretty big topic to follow. It's written by the Paul. He was a pre -millennialist.

All millenialists. That might be one of the reasons. You guys are getting a little taste of what it was like.

He can't even get a question out, these two are already at each other's. I guess we may have to arm wrestle to settle this.

I'm working out, so. Have you seen his little wrist? Everybody stop recording right now.

The kid says, we're not talking to Tony Storm. Shut up, man. Alright, question.

I'm just working with chopstick arms over here. I'm just trying to keep you guys in check a little bit.

Let's focus. In the LSB translation of Colossians 2, 16 -17 we read,

Therefore, no one is to judge you in food and drink, or in respect to a festival, or a new moon, or a

Sabbath day. These things which are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Amen. I agree a hundred percent. So here's the question.

Poor Josh, can't even get a question out. Here is the question. What is what the

Sabbath day is referred to here? And what is the practical implications for the new covenant believers?

I'll start it off and then y 'all can yell at me. So as I understand this, when it says

Sabbath day, if you notice that there is an indefinite article prior to that,

I don't think that's actually referring to the Sabbath. So as we see what he says here,

Paul says it's respect to a festival, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day.

As we looked at, for instance, the Day of Atonement, it was referred to as a Sabbath.

Then you had the Sabbath. So I think that what he's talking about here, generally speaking, are the

Jewish festivals, not including at least the principle of the observation of the

Sabbath. Because the Sabbath itself was a creation ordinance, just like marriage.

So I think that's what he's referring to here are the festivals and those things that are so wildly pointing to Jesus that that's what it is.

So if you have a Jewish brother who's like, hey, I want to celebrate the

Feast of Booths, go ahead. And if I don't want to because I'm a Gentile and I want to eat some bacon, then go ahead.

And if my Jewish brother wants to come over here and eat some bacon with me, then we can do it all to the glory of God.

Bacon! I think the second part of that verse supports what you said too. Because it's saying it's all pointing to Christ, right?

Is that kind of what you're saying? Yeah. So we're not singling out the Sabbath. Because any of these festivals, any of these days of rest, any of these special things that you put aside, and Andrew can talk to this with Jewish upbringing, those are all pointing to Christ, correct?

Yep. And I'll just say, for a lot of people, I think in your message you brought it up, and I can't remember if it was

Dan, but there's more than one Sabbath day. Right. There's actually several Sabbaths during a year.

Right. Passover is a Sabbath. Right. Even if it's not on Saturday. Yeah, but I don't think you can exclude the

Sabbath day. No. It includes all. Yeah, so the Sabbath day is the sign of the covenant, of the

Mosaic covenant. We see this in chapter 31 of Exodus, beginning in verse 12.

It says, Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, But I ask for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying,

You shall surely keep my Sabbaths, so plural, the sign between me, you, throughout your generations, that you may know that I am

Yahweh, who makes you holy. Therefore, you shall keep the

Sabbath, singular, for it is a holy day to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death.

Does that include carrying sticks? Absolutely. Carrying a load. So the

Sabbath day keeping, that's what a lot of people don't understand, especially when it comes to the theonomic conversation.

Right? There's nothing to talk about. All roads, everything. I'm going to make you a t -shirt.

I'll send it to you. But listen, so according to it, Sabbath day keeping is a part of the moral law.

There is a judicial punishment given to it, death. Jeremiah chapter 17 tells you how you profane it, by carrying a load.

So the idea is, is what is a load? Is a load a Bible? Is it a backpack full of Bibles? Either way, so you just have to decide what it is.

So if you're going to establish something, then we need to understand what it is, and you can't leave the Sabbath day keeping out, meaning to profane it is to carry something.

In Old Testament scriptures, you don't find the Sabbath day keeping as a day of worship.

Every day to the G was a day of worship. But it was a day of rest, and you're not to carry a load.

Okay, so we had this conversation, and I think it beat us. Every single night.

Amen. Okay. By the way, if you're going to make the t -shirt, it should say all roads lead to theonomy, to the glory of all millennials.

Amen. Amen. I just want us to be consistent. Then you should agree with me 100%.

So this may be a different view of the Sabbath, because we talked about this, and I have a little bit of a different view, and I think

I'm going to steal your language, because I like it better, instead of a universal or transcendent one. But I believe that on the seventh day of creation,

God created a Sabbath, and it was transcendent, or universal for all people of all times.

And I believe my view, I have a little bit more discontinuity with Israel and the church. I believe that what happened with Moses was that Moses, the nation of Israel, was given specific rules that added on to that transcendent law that was given to all people.

It was specific for the nation of Israel. And when the fulfillment of the law came in Christ, and we're in the church, we are no longer under the

Mosaic Sabbath laws, but I would say we're under that transcendent Sabbath law. I'm stealing that language from now on.

If I steal your illustrations, I might as well steal... Well, it's the idea. So how do we apply that now?

So if we're speaking of the Sabbath day keeping, how do we, in general equity, grab from that and bring it into today?

It's what I was talking about earlier, is that if you're a business owner, and you have a business, you don't work your laborer seven days a week.

You need to give them a day off. And you who are a worker, you shouldn't be a workaholic.

You should not work seven days a week. You need a day off. And I think maybe if you're working for someone, like this would be some kind of a principle that's taken from it, that if the person that you're working for is trying to work you seven days a week, something needs to be done for that to be stopped.

Like legal rights. They're not allowed to work you that way. Which, as you just argued, you don't have to argue that from a judicial ceremonial standpoint.

You can argue that from a transcendent standpoint. Something that's over everybody, that's not dependent upon a law that was given to a nation, but a law that is stemming from who

God is, transcendent. You guys are becoming dispositionals. No, it's just bringing

Hebrews to tell us our rest is in Christ. He has fulfilled the law. Right. And this is where, like I said,

I agree with what you're saying there, Jeff. The question then becomes, to what extent, do you have, because Christ is our

Sabbath, and it's in Jesus that we do find the ultimate and true rest.

And I think we're agreeing 100%. If you're seeing the back and forth and elbowing and ribbing, it's because we agree with a lot and we're trying to, on those finer points, we're like, hey, hey, hey, what are you doing, you big dummy?

Only you use that language. I do. So everyone knows. I do. Because his name's all the time.

It probably is true. It's my love language. You big dummy is a good term.

Yeah. So it's like, bless your heart. So what I'm saying is that we look into, that there is something to be said about that the civil government has a responsibility under the lordship of Christ to uphold what is right and good.

And I would say that we see that, yes, if you're being forced to work seven days, I would say that unless it is out of, it is a work of necessity, that I think that the whole of the nation, the whole of a nation ought to stop.

That we all, does, for instance, does McDonald's need to be open seven days a week?

I don't think it does. I mean, does the federal government? Chick -fil -A approved that.

Chick -fil -A needs to be open all days of the week. That's why you collect manna on the day before the

Sabbath. So you can go to Chick -fil -A on Saturday. Our nation,

I'm old enough to remember as a small child, our nation used to be that. I mean, it wasn't even until maybe the mid -90s that Walmart, which

Sam Walton was a believer, started opening on Sundays. So what do we do with that too when we see culture shift away from, and this is where I think a lot of believers and churches and Christians are having issues, is we took for granted the foundational, biblical,

Mosaic principles of our nation, and we went, oh yeah, it can't be open on Sunday. It's a day of rest.

And the culture just, even the secular culture kind of went along with it and understood it. Now we're in such a point of rebellion too, so then what do we do?

And I know we touched on this too, Jeff, is are we swinging the pendulum the other way a little too far with Christian nationalism and theonomy?

Hey, let's go back to Mosaic law and start putting people to death for certain things that, like you said, might have only been for Israel at that time.

So those are the questions I think about. What do you do when we're at a point where the secular culture has now moved away from even some basic, godly principles, which they don't know why they were honoring it.

You go to Walmart in 1967, they don't know why it was closed. It's because the church wasn't even saying anything.

Right. Because we were taking it for granted for so long that we never even explained why we were observing that.

And so then it's no surprise that the culture's like, why are we doing this? Let's open it up.

Not just the Sabbath, but everything. Why in the world were we keeping the homosexual from being married?

Well, because God has clearly defined marriage. But we have been too busy telling you seven ways to cut your grass without offending your neighbor.

Let me add another wrench to that. We've got to get to another question. Poor Joshua's like,

I've got all these questions now. He's like, this is one hour. And the reason I want to bring this up, though, is

I think this is a genuine concern that he comes along with this. Not only is Jesus our rest, Jesus is our work, too.

He lived a life that I could not live. And he's the builder of the better house. And so the reality is, is that even though a nation might honor the

Sabbath by not working on a Saturday or a Sunday, if they're working throughout the week without the glory of God, they're still blaspheming his name.

And so it's sin, sin, and sin no matter what. So the Constitution should have

Jesus as Lord. Before we get too far, I've got three questions that kind of all come together and make me sad.

And you're realizing you're going to leave a lot of these questions there. And I might have to reduce them. So three in one.

All right, so I'm going to ask three different questions and I'll let you guys take over. Is there any significance of Isaac carrying the wood on his back when him and Abraham were traveling to the mountain to make the sacrifice, or are we reading into it?

Did you write that one? Second question. I set this up. Second question. Would anyone else on the panel affirm that Isaac is a type of Christ?

Hebrews 11, 17 through 19 shows that Isaac was a shadow of Christ. Knew someone wanted to throw me under the bus.

And then the final one, kind of along these lines, and this is considered a

Part B. Are there any controls or limitations on what shadows we take out of the

Old Testament and make them into substance in the New? What are the limitations? Kind of like the

Catholics dig Mary in the Ark and consider that a shadow and substance.

What are the limitations? What are the shadows to substance? Great question. That's a very good question.

So maybe to answer them in reverse order, my opinion is that there's always a danger in doing anything hyper, right?

You see that in hyper -Calvinism, hyper -dispensationalism, hyper -everything, right? There's always a danger that one can take that, as Brother Greg explained the other day, is that that ditch,

Mr. Brother Greg, Presbyterian Greg here, that there's always a danger on the side of the road, that ditch, right?

And those creeds and confessions that we hold to keep us from going into those ditches, but people oftentimes can put their foot over it and fall right into it, right?

And so there's a danger in that. And then to answer your other questions, I would say yes and yes. And I would say that when it comes to allegorization, basically,

I mean, you can make allegories out of just about anything you want. You can read into, you can read into the text anything you want to.

But when we go to particular texts, like in Galatians, where we have literally, in the scripture, the scripture says that as an allegory,

Abraham and Sarah, right? And Abraham and Hagar, we can make those direct connections to the statement concerning Isaac.

I think very much that biblically, we can say that Isaac was a type and a shadow because Christ was our sacrifice.

And we can make those connections between the wood on his back, right?

Christ carried the cross on his back up to the place where he was to be crucified, up until the point where it was given to Simon the

Cyrenean, right? Amen. Well, I guess

I sort of answered it in a message. I know I'll be the, go ahead. Maybe I don't. I mean, I'll still say,

I just, I can't say he is a type. The last question, where do

I draw the line? If scripture says Jonah is a type of Christ, then

Jonah is a type of Christ. This is what I know. That as the axe of Abraham's wrath was coming to slaughter his son,

God stopped his hand and pointed him to a ram caught in a thicket. I agree 100%.

And as the axe of God's wrath was coming to crush us for our sins,

Jesus on the cross took the wrath. And so, and this is the difference.

So the difference would be, you might say he is a type of Christ, and I would say there's a lot of similarities.

And so I would say there's a lot of similarities with Isaac to us. Isaac was going to be sacrificed.

God stopped his hand. Maybe even the ram. Yeah, the ram, the ram, like, the ram would be more of a type of Christ to me.

The ram took the wrath of Isaac's knife. As Jesus took the wrath of God's punishment that Isaac took.

And I think one of the things that, why I make the distinction, why it's important to be precise like this is because there is a danger, and all of us up here as pastors, we can all be guilty of this as preachers, just to preach something because it preaches wrong.

And say something Scripture doesn't say. My fear is when I stand before my Lord, I don't want to stand before my

Lord and Him say, Angie, you went too far. I'd rather Him say, you didn't go far enough. Everything He said is right, but you could have gone further.

I'd rather be in the same position. So that's why I say, I use the regulatory principle of interpretation. I've been hanging out for three days.

I don't think none of this is safe. At least you got the mic for the majority of the time.

I've been trying to handle it all. I've been trying to handle it all. So, to Andrew's point here, that there are some things that, like I've had discussions with Brayden over the phone going,

I've got this kind of kooky idea that I seem to be supplying, but I'm not going to preach this from the pulpit.

All right. So like there's things from like, you know, a good conspiracy theory, you go, there's a little something to that.

And you may chain them on your friends. And then like time comes and you go, don't you?

But it's totally different when you get up behind the desk and to say, thus says the

Lord. And you better, you better have precedent to be able to make a connection.

You know, and so, whereas, you know, I'm sitting here looking at Leviticus 16 and I'm going, you know, looking at some stuff going, you know, that there's, there's some rabbits

I could chase and go, you know, which one's the hair that we're going to take out?

You know, what's the one that we're going to say? This is it. You know, so looking at something as simple as the clothing change, you go, there is to me, there's something so undeniable.

I can't not to say it when it tells me in Philippians two of what Jesus had done. And it's like, that's the high priest.

What'd you say, Kevin? What do I have to say? Yeah. Yeah. I think it comes back to, again, when we stand up behind the pulpit and we're standing on the authority of God's word, it's the same reason that I'm not going to preach from John eight, one through 11.

Right. It's not in the earliest manuscript. So I'm not going to stay. For me, as I look at it,

I'm just going to say, it's not in the earliest manuscript. So when I get into the pulpit to preach, what

I'm saying is, thus sayeth the Lord. And not that Jeff doesn't take that seriously, but for me personally,

I feel very unsafe to stand upon the authority of God's word if I don't have great confidence in those verses.

So I think the same can be said. I remember I was trying to dig through my Bible to find it, but there's a place in Exodus, I believe, where when

Moses comes down to address it, he mixes up the water, right? And it has the people drink it, right?

And I remember when I first stumbled upon that, he had the gold from the calf thinking, man, they're going to drink down judgment.

And that reminds me of Christ drinking down my judgment. And I was like, man, that'll preach. But I hesitated because as I began digging and seeking out counsel, the counsel

I received was, well, there's really no place to back that up anywhere else in scripture. So one of our principles of hermeneutics is to interpret scripture with scripture.

And I just felt, again, unsafe. It seems really, really parallel, analogous, but again,

I always want to be cautious because I'm going to stand before God one day and give an account. So the reason why he wouldn't, your critical text position, which

I'm sure most of y 'all in here are hooked to the critical text position, except for most King James people.

I'm not a King James, but I'm hooked to the majority text position. So that's why

I would. I'll let y 'all study that for yourselves. Very quickly, just to finish up on shadows too,

I just want to make sure, since we're in a room of people who love to define terms, shadow isn't an exact image either, right?

Shadows are shadowy. And a shadow can only take place where there's a brighter light behind it, something in front of it, right?

So when we're talking about Isaac, I think it's good to keep in mind we're talking about shadows. We're not talking about an exact image or an exact replication.

It is supposed to be a little fuzzy. A shadow isn't necessarily clear. You can't necessarily grasp it, pick it up.

It's not tangible. So it's not a very distinct similarity. Yeah, I like that. And I think we're all, and I would like to say we're all grateful that Kevin did cancel one of his modeling contracts.

Look at the beautiful set of hair in this guy. Give him two mics.

Give him two mics. One for his ears. Don't cut it out. That coming from a guy wearing a velvet ribbon.

As a good Presbyterian, I'm always ready to smoke. What does he say?

Superior theology or whatever it is? This next question references

Peter 321. 1 Peter 321. So I'm going to read that before I ask it.

Corresponding to that, baptism that saves you, not the removal of character from the flesh, but an appeal of a good conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The question is this. What is the baptism that saves? Can I answer? You're going through anyway.

It's your conference, dude. Well, I think you really have to go up a couple verses.

So if you look at verse 18, it says, For Christ also suffered for sins once and for all, the righteous for the unrighteous.

So righteous means law -keeping. Unrighteous means law -breaking.

So the law -keeper suffered for the law -breakers. How did that happen?

Through his death, burial, and we'll get there. For Christ also suffered once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that he might bring you to God, having been put to death in the flesh and made alive in the

Spirit. And then here comes that, which I thought John was going to touch on when he was preaching in the

Ark. Yeah, he did, and he says, In which also he went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who waited patiently.

Oh, I lost my place. Now in prison, who once were disobedient and the patience of God kept waiting in the days that went away.

During the construction of the Ark, in which a few, that is eight persons, were brought safely through water.

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you, not to removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal of a good conscience to God.

It's really right here, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So verse 18 speaks about his death and burial, and then verse 21 brings out his resurrection.

So the baptism that saves us, so if you look, Jesus talks to his disciple. He says, I have a baptism to undergo.

Oh, how I wish this were. The baptism he was speaking about, he was speaking about it's in his future, he wasn't pointing back to his past when he was baptized.

His baptism that he's pointing to that he has to undergo is his death, burial, and resurrection. When you and I are baptized, we are baptized into his death, burial, and resurrection.

Buried with him in baptism, raised with him in the newness of life.

So the baptism that saves us is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's not talking about our being dumped into the water.

It's talking about what happened with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. What he undergoes saves us.

Here we go. Actually, I'll argue this. There's a problem with translations because we have an

English word for this. Sorry. Dip, plunge, immerse, right?

And the problem is we think of baptism. You're thinking baptismal, baptismal. Yeah, but see the thing is we end up thinking this is one specific thing when the word actually means more than one.

Because we think, we always think, we see baptism and think, what are baptisms? Like that's the only thing that it refers to.

But the word is used in a lot of different ways. Yeah, because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, so for the most part,

I take baptism as wet unless this context tells me otherwise.

And I think context here tells us otherwise. Death, burial, at the end, resurrection. It's all focused on what happened to Christ.

And I think what Andrew just said is a really good point as well. Can I just say that again? It's a really good point, really good point, except for the dispensational side of things.

That's a very bad point. He doesn't apply the same armabedics to it. Anyway. You can change that, but it's dispensational.

Corresponding to what Andrew just said, Andrew is right. We have to define words in its context.

We can't take what one time a word means over here and always apply it throughout. A word gets its definition based on its context, right?

Again, if we take a ultra -hyper, as we just talked about the dangers of it, the literal reading of the text, and we hear

John the Baptist saying, Jesus, behold the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world as He's walking down the banks of Jordan, are we to take that as a physical, literal sheep, or is

He the perfect sacrifice, the perfect propitiation for us on our behalf? It's about authorital intent that defines the words for us.

And so in this, the authorital intent in this is referring to that ark that Noah, the ark suffered all the wrath for the people on the inside of that boat, but they were brought through it safely.

And so Christ is our greater ark, as John Crawford did an excellent job on speaking on. And so corresponding to that baptism, corresponding to that immersion of God's wrath being poured out on Jesus for those in Him, again, limited atonement, we are saved corresponding to that baptism.

This has been symbolized in baptism by immersion. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.

Absolutely. Absolutely. I'm not nearly dumb enough to.

I'll leave that to the much smarter people. You haven't figured a way to turn them all on me. All right, this next question will be in First Corinthians 13 .10

if you want to turn there. This will be the last one. First Corinthians 13 .10.

Well, when the perfect comes, the partial will be no more. You had to go there.

Who wrote that? Identify yourself. I'll hold it for a moment.

Is the perfect completed canon, or pray it's your turn? I'll just say go listen to my sermon at Kootenay Community Church where we have the

Cessationist Conference because I don't have time to give the overall message of why it's the canon. But if you disagree, you're just wrong.

That's okay. You'll be right in there. Corresponding to that, that is correct.

I would agree that it's canon. Canon. Canon. Sensationalism.

So we all are 100 % agreeable? Well, I'm a biblical sensationalist, so I don't know what you are.

But you agree 100 %? I believe that God can do whatever God wants to do.

God works in my life. If you don't believe that God works, come hang out with me. But again,

I'm a sensationalist. Do you have anything to add? No. Unexpected unity. We'll tease in one more.

Okay. And as we're all thinking the same, we see Dr. White there going, uh, uh, uh. I feel a dividing line.

I was praising God. Dr. White was not here when I preached because I don't want to be in a dividing line.

I don't want to be in a Justin Peters seminar or in a dividing line. I've been on the dividing line once, but it was good.

Good things came from it. I think we can squeeze in this last one. Are there any other shadows to substance themes that did not make the conference you guys believe are worth mentioning?

Can I answer that one? Yeah. So literally, when we were talking about the different topics that we could switch to because it was originally going to be in Ephesians.

Uh, we were like, what could be a good topic that we could keep our dispensational friend here and also keep some other friends of ours here without offensive, offending someone.

So we were running different ideas by each other. And I came out. So wait, how, how was that the case when you purposely threw me under the bus?

It's good though. It's good. We're, we're hoping to sanctify you. It's happening right now.

Um, but, uh, came out guys.

Uh, no. So I, I recently been preaching through the book of Ruth, uh, and the book Haggai and just seeing the obvious shadows in there.

And so I was like, guys, we could do an awesome conference on shadows to substance. And, and Jeff was like, well, can we think of 10 shadows?

And I rattled off like 30 right then and there, like, it was like, they're all over the place. And the

God glorifying thing in this is that it's a continual, uh, as the shadows do, they just shout out Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, he's coming.

And for us now we say, Jesus, Jesus, he's coming again. Right. And I think that's something

I've been super encouraged by for all the preaching here today is that this time you uncover an ounce of the gallons of shadows that we have.

Um, there are so many and it's all God glorifying and he's coming for the millennium. I'm just trying to mess up.

I'm just working on your science. We got all the pre -millennials right here.

Kevin, you're free. I am. Oh, okay. He's like, he's like the closet.

You know, I take back my model. Oh, here we go.

Wait, wait, wait. My bad. You do realize. Hold on.

Hold on. Kevin. Make a distinction between Israel and the church. I do make a distinction. We're done.

Break. Be sure to follow us on Facebook and Instagram at dead men walking podcast for full video podcast episodes and clips or email us at dead men walking podcast at gmail .com.