This Age is Passing Away: the Emptiness of Secularism, then Hebrews 10 for Resurrection Weekend

Well, greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. Here we are again in the same studio that we were in last time. Didn't have to move all the cameras around. I tell you, there's just so much stuff going on.

I cannot believe how quickly the next trip is coming up. Don't forget those of you in the, well, south central part of the country. Livingston, Louisiana is the focus of where I'm going on this next trip.

Two debates with Jimmy Akin, then a few days after, well, I think that's, is that Wednesday, Thursday? And then Friday, Saturday, Sunday will be the conference on reaching Roman Catholics. So about five days there as far as actual speaking is concerned.

There in Livingston at Brian Gunter's church, he works very closely with End Abortion Now, a good friend with Jeff and Luke and Zach. And in fact, Jeff's supposed to be heading down there, but Jeff said he was hesitant to be making Brian do all this stuff since I'm heading down there, putting up with Jeff and all the rest of that stuff.

So it'll probably be May before he gets down there. But anyway, so if you're in that area, go to aomin .org, right on the front page, there's a link you can click. It'll take you to, let's talk about the debates.

I assume there's more information about the conference there, stuff like that. And so I'm there through a Sunday, I believe that I head north. So I'm doing my, the Texas loop. I've got, there's two ways I can get out of Arizona and go east, pretty much.

And that is the 40 up through Flagstaff, and then over into New Mexico there, Grants and Albuquerque and Tucumcari and all those places, and then into sort of northern Texas, Panhandle up there. Or go south along the 10 and end up having to, you know, last time through El Paso wasn't the worst thing I've ever experienced.

I was actually thought, okay, I'm done, we've gotten through, we're good. And then it went down to one lane and slowed down. But there's a lot of construction in El Paso. But I made it through last time fairly, fairly well.

So I should be kind to the folks who do work on the roads there. But anyways, those are the two directions. So this loop's going to be this direction this time. So I'll start off going out in the south, down to, you know, just outside of New Orleans, really.

And then back up north to prior Oklahoma. And of course, Grace Life Church there with Derek Melton and all the fine folks there, try to get there as often as possible. And we're going to be talking about the atonement of Christ, which we'll be talking about a little bit today on the program, too.

There at Grace Life Church, May 1st and 2nd. And then headed home from there. It'll be a good shakedown run on the new RV. And I figure by the time we get back, we'll have everything figured out as to how things work.

Hopefully not having caused any problems in the process. But lots of stuff to do between now and then. Sometime probably it's looking like next week. It has to be really next week. Hopefully early next week, Rich and I will be working our, we will be getting our steps and we will be getting our climbing steps, too, because we've got to move everything out of the old RV into the new one and hopefully put it, put the stuff where we logically found again.

And in fact, I'm sure I'm going to find some stuff as we're emptying out. Oh, that's where that went. I wondered about that. That's always what happens when something like that happens. But anyway, so we work on that next week and get in the real workout in the process.

And there's one more step I noticed on the new unit because it's it's just so much taller. Yeah, it's it's just she's a beastie. And I need a rope. No, I'm not going to never going to need. I've never seen one that you need a rope to get into, actually, at all.

But yeah, we in fact, tomorrow I have a a tire ladder coming. And I think I did see someone use one of these, but it's this type of it's a it's a ladder that it's a step stool type thing, but you you put it on your tire and it hooks onto the tire and you put the thing down and you can stand right up over the tire.

And I just need that. The little step stool that I've been using has always been highly questionable as to its actual functional capacity. It's just not high enough to get me far enough in there to reach down and work with the new hitch, which has a slider on it.

And so I've got to be able to get the slider and I've got to get this pin in and get it. You've got to be able to get up far enough to get into it. And so, yeah, lots of lots of it's a learning curve and I will get everything learned right in time to retire.

And I'll have no one to teach it to. So, yeah, there you go. Anyway, excited about going. I have been watching things today on Twitter and I I have to admit. I saw this guy going after one of the sisters on Twitter, and so I sort of made a made a comment and I was struck once again.

I can't imagine that Van Till. Well, I'll take that back. Schaefer sort of did. I just wonder how much did visionaries like Van Till and Schaefer, if you have to close your ears, but you just have to admit it, Rush Dooney.

Did they see how the level of absurdity that would develop when secularism finally just opened its all out assault on the West and on the the. Obvious elements of Christianity that held Western society together, could they possibly see the, you know, Chesterton made comments that might indicate that he did.

But I mean, just the the complete abdication of rationality. Utter abandonment of reason, logic, anything. You can see this every single day on X, Twitter, Facebook, and I don't use any of the rest of them.

I don't use TikTok or Instagram or any of that stuff. When people send me links, I'm always like, uh, this may or may not work. I don't know. But the the level the the dumbing down the the making everyone in our society infants.

Could they have possibly really seen what was coming along those lines? I don't, I certainly never dreamed it was it was a possibility, but I wasn't a visionary, wouldn't claim that it was. So when you when you recognize secularum in Latin, when you have the phrase forever and ever, to the age of the ages in Greek, normally comes across using secularum.

So it's the it's this age. So secularism is, you know, the spirit of this age. And that's what it's about. That's, that's its essence. That's what it's, it's promoting is the, the goodness of this world without any reference to what has come before.

So it really disconnects us from history. And certainly without any concept of future, it is very much focused upon self-realization, self-fulfillment. That's why, you know, as recently as my own generation, you, you felt some kind of responsibility to marry, have children, be some type of productive member of society and continue the culture and the nation and at least somewhat look to the future.

Not everybody looked as far in the future as they should have. I certainly really wasn't taught that, but it was still sort of there someplace. It was communicated without necessarily saying it out loud.

But you, you look at the selfish, what's, what is, there's an acronym for married, single, two income, no children. You know, you know what I'm talking about? Dinks, dual income, no kids. That's okay.

All right. And you, you look at these and their kids, they're, I don't care if they're 40, 50, as far as their maturity, their insight, their concern about others and the future, they're children. And they're just so proud that not only does their family name come to end with them, but when they die, that's it.

Because from a secular perspective, why not? There's nothing, there's no judgment. There's nothing in the future. You can't invest in your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, your great-great-grandchildren.

You can't invest in them. You can't build anything for them because there's, there's nothing to do. There's, there's nothing. Once you die, you just turn to dust and that's, that's it. And so this is what secular, secularism is anti-human.

It is opposed to everything that is good, everything that makes us, the amazing thing is it makes people miserable. Study after study, you know, you hear all this stuff all the time about, I heard somebody talking about the happiness index and how America is falling down the happiness index.

And it's funny when you see some of the countries, some of the people with the highest level happiness are the people who have the least of the world's goods. Because they don't have to, they're not spending half their time trying to figure out how to hold on to it or how to get it for that matter.

Secularism is the antithesis of Christianity. It is destructive of humanity. It is destructive of human flourishing and all the secular concepts that we bring into the faith because of our constant exposure to secular sources and secular thinking and secular movies and secular print and secular this, that, and the other thing, we bring it into the church and it creates a mishmash.

It can't fit with what is in scripture at all. It reminds me of the rather cutting words of scripture in 1 John 2, 1 John being the simplest Greek in the New Testament. It's child level. And yet, child level words can be used to communicate fundamentally earth-shaking concepts.

So in 1 John 2, verse 15, do not love the world, neither the things in the world. The term is kosmos. You have ion, age, kosmos. Unfortunately, the King James was nowhere near consistent in its translation of these terms.

And so as a result, you get traditional beliefs have developed over time based on the King James rendering that no one bothered to see what the underlying text was. But ion, ionios, kosmos have overlapping semantic domains, as we say, but they can mean very different things.

And as I said in a debate a few weeks ago, kosmos is used at least 10 different ways by John and about 14 different ways in the New Testament. If you have the old fundamentalist hermeneutic mindset that says first use determines meaning, where the first time you encounter a word in the Bible, normally in the King James, that determines its meaning in the rest of the Bible, there is no such rule as that.

And it's absurd on its face. And yet so many people accept it as a given. I heard it in my youth. And the result with kosmos and world would be a total mess. But the same writer who recorded Jesus saying for God's to love the world that he gave his only begotten son said, do not love the world nor the things in the world.

If you can't tell that means, yeah, it's probably a different use of the word world. You get really confused reading the rest of the Bible. And by the way, can I just mention that first John, John 3, 16 is not God.

So love the elect. I've, I've never said it was the elect. I mean, the, the who's going to get eternal life. Well, the elect will, because they're going to believe they're all the believing ones, but the world is just simply the entire world of Jews and Gentiles and the elector drawn out of that world of Jews and Gentiles.

But John's not referring to that there. Uh, it is a demonstration of his love to the world, which has all sorts of different results. I mean, um, I got to spend a few minutes last weekend passing out tracks in, uh, and talking to a few folks in a Mesa, the Easter pageant, I'm going to try to get out there the next two nights, Lord willing, uh, if I can, you know, it's a whole lot easier when we were in our twenties.

Um, you know, and we were exhausted by the end of it back then, but standing for that many hours now, I find myself looking for the planters, uh, real quick to, you know, sit it down for a few minutes and take some, take some weight off.

There ain't no, no two ways about that. Um, but anyway, uh, oh yes. Someone just, uh, dual income, no kids equals dinks, single income, two children, oppressive mortgage equals sitcoms. S I T C O M S.

All right. There's lots of, uh, lots of interesting things like that there. Anyway. Um, as I was saying the term world do not love the world nor the things in the world. So John's making a distinction.

There is love of world and there is a love of the things in the world. Um, if anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him. Now that is, that is convicting stuff. That is, um, because I think all of us at some level or another have a love of our stuff and hence that's described as the love of the world.

And if anyone loves the world, love of the father is not in him. Now, if you could take that super literally, then you're going to have to take it, you know, is continually loving the world. But still the, the, the point I think is clear to any, to any of us, there is something antithetical about having, uh, Hey, I got paid to put Ross, the, the love of the father.

Now is that the love which comes from the father? Is that the love? Is this the subjective objective genitive, uh, the love for the father love that comes from the father, a fatherly type of love. I, there's Jen.

It was amazing thing. Um, however you decide that there is an antithesis between loving the world and loving the father for all that is in the world. The less the flesh, the less the eyes, the boastful pride of life.

Now see right there. Those are three clearly negative concepts describing for us that this, this world that's being described here isn't the same world of John 3 16. This is secularism. This is the spirit of the age.

This is to live in God's world while in rebellion against him so that you have the loss of the flesh, the loss of the eyes, the boastful pride of life. Um, things that absolutely enslave those that do not have the ability to look above this world, this age, and see how this fits together with what's come in the past and what is yet to come in the future.

People who do not even have the concept of living in light of eternity. Um, none of this is from the father. It's from the world. So it, it has its origination in the cosmos, not in the father. It does not come forth from the father, but comes forth from the world.

These concepts of less the flesh, less of the eyes. You know, we understand less the flesh, less to the eyes, greed, greed, and man is that a, um, a Western sin par excellence. I mean, poor people can be greedy as well, but what the West is taking, taking greed to a advertising maximum, shall we say, and the world is passing away.

And also it's lusts, but the one who does the will of God abides forever. And so as I look at, as I listened to people trying to reason from a secular perspective, uh, there was this, like I said, I chimed in with this thread on Twitter and this guy was mocking a sister and, and I just made the comment, you're, you are morally and ethically malformed.

Um, your, your morals and your ethics because you're a secularist are incoherent. They, they, they have no source in your worldview. You cannot consistently apply these things to anyone else. Um, you just, you really don't have anything to say.

And of course he became rather abusive in his response. But when you, the, the, the temptation is for us Christians to become frustrated. Um, you, you see someone made in the image of God utterly throwing what that means out and yet acting as if they're God themselves, really, that's what you end up seeing with so many of these people.

And it can be very, very frustrating. And one of the exhortations we need to be making to each other over and over again in our, we, we, we need to recognize we're all in this battle. And so we need to be exhorting one another and encouraging one another.

That's something we should be doing. We gather for, for fellowship and, and for, you know, whatever meetings we have during the week and things like that, encouraging one another, because it's discouraging to try to be salt and light in this society, in a society that is clearly under the judgment of God.

And so we have to encourage one another. And one of the things we need to be encouraging one another with are, are the words such as, but the one who does the will of God abides forever. And this is over against the world passing away.

It's lust, the lust of the eyes, the lust of the pride of life, the lust of flesh. But the one who does the will of God, not the will of the world, not, not as defined by the world, but does the will of God abides forever.

And that's something that we should be very much focused upon. Now it is, uh, now somebody asked me why, and I guess, I guess Passover and Easter this time around are completely disconnected. Um, I didn't look at it, so I'm sorry, I can't really comment on it.

Obviously the quarter decimant controversy in church history was, when do you, uh, celebrate the resurrection of Christ? How do you determine that? And the East did it in one way, the West did it another way, that led to argument and eventually schism.

Um, and people who utilize the Jewish Passover as the mechanism for determining that, I'm, I'm, I have seen comments that having Easter coming up, Resurrection Sunday coming up this weekend is so long before Passover that you're, you're, you know, you're gonna have the resurrection well before, before, um, Passover, which doesn't make much sense.

And I, I hadn't looked at, I, I only saw that and I was like, oh, that's interesting. I, I suppose I could, you know, look some stuff up about that a little bit too late now, um, to do that. But since for most people, anyway, there is probably going to be some kind of a, um, resurrection theme, crucifixion theme, uh, thing going on, um, this weekend.

I forget what it was this morning, but I saw someone's comment, someone said something, and my mind was drawn to Hebrews chapter 10. And I, I wrote a little something up this morning. Well, not a little something, I'm not sure how many characters it was, but it had a little substance to it, on Hebrews chapter 10 verses 10 through 14.

And I commented, as I have so many times before, that I would think this time of year would be a great time to focus on the book of Hebrews. Um, and I've expressed the fact that Hebrews became one of my favorite books in the New Testament when I preached through it over the course of a number of years.

I forget how many years it was. I do remember it was 85 sermons, so that's a while. It was probably five, six years, um, as far as the timeframe goes. Anyway, um, and I, I commented then that it seems to me that if Hebrews was a more widely read and understood book, and the only way to do that is if you understand its Old Testament backgrounds and you have a really strong grasp of the Levitical law, Leviticus, things like that, priesthoods, you know, there's all sorts of stuff that the book assumes you know from the Jewish scriptures, the Hebrew scriptures.

And since most people don't know those scriptures, then Hebrews has always been somewhat of a closed book. I know it, I know it pretty much was to me as a young person in the Baptist circles that I lived in, and yet there is no book that has longer, directly relevant, specifically on this topic, passages, specifically on the topic of the crucifixion of Christ and the purposes and intentions of that, uh, than the book of Hebrews does.

And I've lamented the fact that I think that the reason that most evangelicals have a, an emotional doctrine of the cross rather than a consistently biblical doctrine of the cross is because we've gotten most of our understanding from hymns, um, musicals, um, all sorts of stuff other than the text of scripture itself.

And so I looked at Hebrews 10 and as I was, as I was writing it, I was even struck by something that obviously I've, I've seen the text, but I don't remember really being pressed to think through the significance.

So let's, let's look at Hebrews chapter 10. We'll do the rest of our time here pretty much. And, um, I do, oh, I, that's, that's rich and rich is, um, that's, that's the rich cam, um, over there. Green.

Oh, you're, you're blaming, you're blaming the color of the buttons. Oh, it's anyway. Uh, you're trying to find the feed from the, uh, from the laptop, right? There you go. Okay. For the law, Hebrews 10 one, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things can never buy the same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year make perfect those who draw near.

Otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshipers having once been cleansed and no longer have consciousness of sins. But in these, in those sacrifices, those repetitive sacrifices, there is a reminder of sins year by year.

Now I, I know you're all going, yeah, we've heard this one before, but we have new listeners all the time. I don't want to leave them out of, um, something rather beautiful here. The argument is if, if those old sacrifices were truly meant to remove sin, then wouldn't that have then cleansed the conscience, consciences of those who drew near to worship so they wouldn't have to keep going back year after year after year after year.

Now some people might say, well, wait a minute, we confess our sins. We have confession of sins as every part of our service. How does that fit with this? Um, and I would just simply point out the, the difference here is that what's being spoken of in Hebrews is repetitive sacrifices.

The sacrifice on Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, as I keep saying, it's Yom Kippurim, there was more than one sacrifice made, but the day of atonement, Leviticus chapter 16, that sacrifice, while it was being made, if you stood in the congregation that gathered at the temple and you saw the sacrifice being made and the high priest taking the blood into the holy place, if you were thinking, you would recognize that this was going to happen again next year.

And you probably were there the year before. It's the same sacrifice. It's the same thing happening over and over again. It's speaking of my sins, but it's not taking my sins away because I wouldn't have to be here now since I was here last year and I'm going to have to be here again next year.

And so it's not really burying my sins, is it? No. In those sacrifices right here, there is an anamnesis, the anamnesis of sins. Kat and Yaltan is a way of saying year by year, yearly. Anamnesis means reminder, a remembrance.

And I think, personally, I think one of the most beautiful things in the New Testament is you have this term. It's not an overly common term. And it's saying that in repetitive sacrifices, because you have to do it over and over and over again, you have a remembrance of what?

Of sins, year by year. But this term is used elsewhere. Like I said, it's not on every other page in the Testament. It's fairly rare, but it is used elsewhere. This is the exact same term that Jesus uses when he says of the supper, do this as an anamnesis, a remembrance of me.

So repetitive sacrifices remind us of sin. A singular one sacrifice reminds us of the sin bearer who has taken away sin. Same term, the many sacrifices were pointing forward to the one that would then actually take away sin.

That's beautiful. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says, sacrifice an offering you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me.

There's a textual variant there. It's fascinating. We don't have time to get into it. You can hear my discussion of it in my sermon on that subject from that Hebrew series back in who knows where. Anyway, in burnt offerings and sacrifices of sin, you have taken no pleasure.

Then I said, behold, I have come in the scroll it is written of me to do your will, O God. He focuses upon the Greek Septuagint use of the lemesu, your will. He says, after saying sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sacrifice of sin you have not desired, nor have you taken pleasure in them which are offered according to the law.

Then he said, behold, I have come to do your will. He takes away the first, the sacrifices that were still going on in the temple. I don't even know how you make hedge tales out of Hebrews if you don't see it was written before the destruction of the temple but he takes away the first, which is the Mosaic sacrificial commandment, in order to establish the second, behold, I have come to do your will.

By this will, the will that Christ has come to fulfill, by this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. So there is one of the most important sacrifice atonement texts in all of the New Testament.

By this will, the will of Christ being obedient to the Father, I've come to do your will, we have been sanctified, we have been, I think in Hebrews it would probably be better to understand that as made holy.

In fact, I think you could really make an argument that in Hebrews, this is as close as you're going to get to Paul's use of the term Dikaiosune and Dikaiot justification. And the reason for the difference is, again, I think this is Luke, not Paul, writing this.

I think Paul's preaching it, so Luke's providing the Greek vocabulary. But this is different. It's in a different realm, a conceptual realm, than the will of God for you is your sanctification, that you would not engage in sexual lust and things like that.

That's a different context in the Paulian corpus. And by this will, you have been made holy through the prosphoros, the offering, again, standard terminology of what took place on the day of atonement, things like that.

But it's the offering to somatos, of the body of a goat, a bull, a calf, no, of Jesus, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, aphopox, one time. It is a temporal adverb, and so it's referring to once for all. I realize in English you can try to do this, but you can't with the Greek.

It does not mean once for all people. It's a temporal adverb. Once, it's referring to frequency, and this frequency is one. One time. So, we are standing in God, in God's sight, has been accomplished through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, one time.

So, there's the contrast. Contrast is, they offer the same sacrifices year by year by year by year, reminder of sin. We have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ one time. If it is repeated, the entire argument of Hebrews is refuted.

If you have an unbloody sacrifice that in any way, shape, or form is involved in your perfection before God, in your holiness before God, which is what Rome teaches, you've undone the argument of Hebrews.

You have. There is no ephapox. There is no once for all, because Rome teaches the mass is a representation of the one sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody manner. Now, you could go for either one of those.

It's not bloody, it's not a sacrifice. If it's a representation, then it should be propitiatory, which they say it is, but it's not perfecting. You don't go to mass once and, ah, I'm ready to go. Doesn't work that way.

Instead, you go over and over and over and over again. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. They can picture it, they can point away from themselves, but they never take away sins.

But this one, he, having offered one, it's this one, but this one won in behalf of sins, having offered sacrifice. So this one, in opposition to, again, in contrast to, the priests, and this has all been developed, this is why the author was talking about Melchizedek and blessings and Leviticus, the Levites, and all this stuff, to establish the supremacy of the Melchizedek priesthood over the Aaronic priesthood.

And to say there's only one Melchizedek priest, where I took some of the tests for an Aaronic priest tract with me, I've got some in the truck, I need to grab some more before I go out. And we were using those for all the missionaries going by.

Do you hold the Aaronic priesthood? We need to reprint that or something eventually. But all that stuff that the author has done is laying the foundation for this, so that he can say, but this one, in opposition to the old priests, by one sacrifice, in behalf of sins, for all time, he's offered one sacrifice, those sins are taken away.

Either they are or they're not. The idea of general atonement, universal atonement, utterly misunderstands the concept of substitution and the concept of the completedness of the work of Christ. He offered one sacrifice for sins for all time.

And then he sat down at the right hand of God. He sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies are put as a footstool for his feet. Now, I'm not sure why, and maybe it's just a setting in my program, but in my Greek New Testament, this is the one we use in the studio, and it's our backup one.

But I know this morning, in looking at this at home, the Greek used italics to indicate the Septuagint citation. I'm not sure why it's not doing that now. I'm going to have to look to see if I was overzealous in clicking certain things or whatever.

But you can see in the English translation, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies are put as a footstool for his feet. So the use of the all caps indicative of the citation from the Greek Septuagint.

And of course, we know the text. It's obviously God's favorite Bible verse because he quotes it more often than any other. Psalm 110 1. So here in the middle of a discussion of what Christ accomplishes in his death, you have the 110th Psalm, which Paul makes reference to in 1 Corinthians 15.

There are a number of highly charged theological areas that the text appears in. The idea is, he sits down at the right hand of God, which means his work has been accepted. And there is no place to sit in the holy place.

There's no place to sit down. You come in, you do what you're supposed to do, and then you turn around and you leave for another year. And so sat down at the right hand of God, that's the position of authority, of acceptance, of being beloved, waiting from that time until his enemies are put as a footstool for his feet.

Again, a concept not generally a part of our language in the West any longer. It pictures the conquering king with his foot on the neck of his enemies. They are humbled, and he can put his feet upon them, and that's the idea of until his enemies are put as a footstool for his feet.

And so there is a presentation of the finishedness of Christ's sacrifice, but also the victory that comes from Christ's sacrifice. The victory. Because his enemies will be put under his feet for, verse 14, for by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

So the reason for the ultimate cosmic victory of all of his enemies being put under his feet as a footstool is that he has offered one offering, and that one offering has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

And I think that disappears behind the thing there, so let me see if I can... It's fairly close. Christ's sacrifice results in the subjugation of his enemies and being placed under his feet because by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

So the one offering accomplishes exactly what Father, Son, and Spirit intended to offer, which is the perfection, the completedness for all time of those who are being sanctified. And then where does the author go?

He's now made an amazing statement, and where does he go? This is a covenant that I'll make with them after those days, says the Lord, I'll put my laws before their heart and on their mind I will write them.

Where have we heard that before? Well, you know where it's from. It's from Jeremiah 31. But it was also just quoted pretty much in full in chapter 8. So the covenant that comes forth from the shed blood of Christ is the new covenant, and it's the covenant that I'll make with them after those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws upon their heart and on their mind I will write them.

So he's pulling in from Jeremiah 31, which he had just cited beforehand, which again gives us, you know, there's been a few people who have speculated that, you know, the new covenant language is just for Jews, or it's just for, I have heard this, it's just before, um, well, since it's just for the Jews, it doesn't really have universal application, things like that.

No. The death of Christ brings about the new covenant, and guarantees. This is why he can put my, I will put my laws upon their heart and on their mind I will write them, because it accomplishes what is intended to be accomplished.

He then says, it's interesting that he then says, he breaks up the quotation, he didn't in chapter 8, but he does here, he then says, and their sins and their lawless deeds I'll remember no more. Now we, we went through Hebrews 7 and 8 fairly in depth, um, in the mobile studio.

Blessings be upon the mobile studio. Sort of sad to see, I'm gonna be sad to see it, see that one go. I mean, we're gonna, we're gonna, we're gonna have a studio in there. It's, it's just gonna be a different one.

And it's, it's gonna be really, I might be able to work something out, but it's gonna be really hard to have my background in the new location. It really is. And so all the hours I spent putting up that stone background and, oh, but, but don't worry.

I'm working on the lights. Don't worry. We're gonna be good there. We're gonna be good there. Uh, I have, I have backup and contingency plans. We're gonna make it work. It's gonna happen. Um, and I honestly think with that, that thing, I think we can get something very, very similar to what I had and just hang it from the, where the, where the shade comes down.

I think we will be able to have a background that will be something other than just a, a blackout shade, even though that one's white, which is nicer than, you know, something else. Uh, I think it will, but it's probably not gonna be this next trip.

So anyway, sorry, got bumped off my topic there because I was thinking, I was thinking back to talk to when we responded to Jared Longshore and we walked through Hebrews seven and eight and into nine, I think it's just very interesting to me to note that he inserts, um, this, this idea, uh, he says, and their sins and their lawless deeds, I'll remember no more.