The American Churchman: A Conquering King

Welcome to the American Churchmen podcast, where we encourage men to take dominion, fulfill their responsibilities before God, and love Him deeper. I'm Jon Harris. I'm with my co-host, Matthew Pearson.

Hey, Matthew, how are you doing? I'm good, Jon. Hope you're doing well as well. I am. I am feeling like this is the normal time we do it, but it's not. Well, it actually is the normal time. It can be with the time change.

Right. Right. It feels like this is about the right time, but it's 7 20. So anyway, we're not going to do it this way. Normally, I was on a bike ride. It was my first one of the season, and I realized my legs are not strong enough yet to make the time I was hoping to make.

So I had to do some frequent breaks, and my thighs are killing me right now. I don't know if I should have said that, right? It isn't cycling, but the young Zoomer, right? They don't like cycling, right?

Because it kills your T.

That's what I keep hearing, at least. I don't know if it's just that. I think it's more so that bicyclists can be very annoying on the road due to their sense of entitlement to a certain part of it. But if I see a bicyclist, I go in the other line.

I'm not taking any risk.

And they also have to wear spandex, which they don't have to, but I'm not going to say what I.

Was wearing. I was going to ask, were you wearing spandex, John?

My shirt was not, but I guess it's more important that my pants were, yes. And I don't know. I mean, it's got padding in it. It just is great for cycling, but I'll be honest, I definitely make fun. I used to make fun of cyclists, the way that they dressed, because I just thought it looked so weird and effeminate.

And now I got to eat those words, because I've kind of gotten into it. I don't know if it's a phase or what, but yeah, you should do it, Matthew, because you live in a state that is known for having extensive cycling trails, Florida.

My brother even said, he's like, I could move to Florida because they have so many trails and you can just ride on your bicycle, I guess, for hours and hours. I don't know. I've never.

Done it, but yeah, there are nice trails, but I'm more of a, I like going on runs. So that's my thing or going on nice, relaxing Lindy walks. So that's me. I used to like that. Actually,.

That's why I got into cycling was because I hurt my foot and yeah, I can't run as much, but well, with that, how do we transition? There is no transition. We just have to do it. So we usually start the podcast with an attribute of God.

And we have an attribute today, which I think is, it's one of the first attributes, I guess, as a Christian that you understand fully or at least not fully, but like you have to come into terms with, right, which is grace.

So take it away.

The Grace of God as a Divine Attribute

Yeah, John, that's a good point about how grace is like sort of one of the first attributes of God that you really interact because it's by God's grace that you're enabled to respond to the gospel call, which is of grace.

And even in talks of common grace, we see, you know, grace is all ever present throughout the entirety of the scriptures and it's fundamental to our faith. So yeah, let's talk about it. So I'll be beginning by reading two verses, one from Matthew five versus 44 through 45.

And once from Ephesians two versus eight through 10, both of these verses are very familiar versus versus nonetheless, I will read them. So first one, Matthew five, versus 44 through 45, the Lord Jesus says, but I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them, which despitefully use you and persecute you that ye may be the children of your father, which is in heaven for you make it his son to rise on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

And then Ephesians chapter two, verses eight through 10, which many, many Christians have this memorized because it is a verse versus worthy of memorization. Um, uh, these verses from the apostle Paul and his letters to the Ephesians, it reads for by grace, are you safe through faith and that not of yourselves.

It is a gift of God, not of works. Less any man should boast for here, his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. So notice in both of those verses, grace is present, but in differing manners.

And we'll get a bit more into it when we, uh, discuss this more. So, um, as I always do when I discuss an attribute of God, I'd like to go into the sources, which I use. And I used about three sources for this.

The first of which being the one I always go to, uh, Richard Muller's, uh, uh, Greek and Latin, uh, I don't really have the book on me right now. So it's his book, a book defining the theological, uh, terms and Latin and Greek of the reform scholastics and all that.

So I use that. Um, the other one I use was, um, Franciscus Junius's sacred axioms on nature and grace. And then also, um, another book from Franciscus Junius, which I did not write down, but it's on, it's on my shelf.

It's just called Catholic doctrine. Um, so I use those resources, uh, for this. So whatever you hear did not come from just my noggin. It was me consulting the sources.

So, uh, you know, have to say, even telecalls, he just had a heart attack. Catholic in the,.

In the universal sense. I know. Yes. Catholic in the universal sense, Franciscus. Yes. Franciscus Junius was a reformed Protestant who frequently debated with Roman Catholic. So do not worry when he says Catholic, he's not using it in the Romanist sense.

He's using in the sense of the universal church. All right. So how do we say that again? I thought he'd under Calvin. He did. Yes. So, uh, Junius was, uh, he's one of my favorites, very underrated, uh, theologian.

Um, so I, I recommend, I heartily recommend all read him. He is very good on things regarding nature and grace and is very good on anthropology and political theology kind of just hit it all. So he's good.

Um, but yeah, so, um, let's talk about the grace of God though. Uh, what we're getting into, um, essentially the grace is the benevolent, benevolent disposition of God towards sinful humanity. And it thus is the divine operation by which the simple heart and mind are regenerated, including the continuing divine power or operation that cleanses, strengthens, and sanctifies the regenerate.

So when we speak of grace, we can speak of it as we think of this attribute in a relational sense, because it's about God's relation with us. And it's a, it's a type of favor. And this relationship has both, uh, forensic and ontological implications.

When I say forensic, what I mean is part of God's grace is justification. We speak of justification. That is a forensic declaration of righteousness. It's not a recognition of someone being truly righteous and therefore declared righteous rather is being clothed in Christ, having his righteousness imputed to us.

And thus it is forensic in that sense. And yet grace is also ontological in that there are gifts of grace by which God truly does transform us and make us righteous. This is what happens in regeneration where God infuses into us the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love, whereby the spirit of God works in us to change us, to conform us more and more to the image of Christ.

So, um, that, that was the definition I gave of grace. And then I have a quote from Franciscus Junius from his sacred axioms on nature and grace, where he says, God is the source of grace by his goodness alone.

He brings people positioned in evil nature back to good through his temporal act carried out according to his eternal plan of predestination. So the source, God himself, he, because grace is an attribute of him, he is a source of this grace.

And by his goodness, this is a thing, again, is it re it transforms a relationship of us towards God in both an ontological and a forensic sense. Now notice the two verses that I read at first, I read from Matthew 5, 45, 44 through 45.

And I read from Ephesians two verses eight through 10. And the one from Matthew that was from the sermon on the Mount where Christ is commanding us to love our enemies, to bless those that curse us, do good to those that hate us.

And he then in the next verse talks about how the father makes his son to rise on the evil and on the good, and he sends rain on the just and on the unjust. So there are two sorts of grace, which we can speak of.

Uh, there is that one, which is called common grace. And the other is a more particular grace, which we refer to as a saving grace. Now, both of these may be called grace because there's some, um, some reformed people who get really into reform scholasticism or classic magisterial Protestants.

They kind of have a knee-jerk reaction to this notion of common grace because they may think that, oh, well, that's just nature. And then grace is only salvific. And that's not necessarily the case. First off, that's typically like, uh, it's mistaken that, uh, this notion of common grace is a purely neo-Calvinist, uh, concept that, um, uh, emerged from someone like Herman Boving, then Abraham Kuyper, and then was taken by Vantillians.

And that's not all the case. It read through the institutes. You'll see notions of common grace, repeat a martyr Vermeule. You'll see common grace, read Franciscus Junius and his sacred axioms on nature and grace.

He speaks of common grace. Um, both of these can be called grace because they are above the nature of man. And we see this in that common grace shows a general grace to creation whereby God and his providence still upholds and sustains all things, despite the fact that the world has fallen into sin.

And we especially see this in a particular saving grace and that the grace of God is applied in a particular manner to men for their heavenly end. So that's how it orients them, uh, is to a heavenly end.

And notice how I was just talking about how there's nature and grace. The work I'm pulling from, from, uh, Franciscus Junius is sacred axioms on nature and grace. Uh, grace is something that we distinguish from nature.

So the reason we distinguish, um, grace from nature is because there are certain things that are natural to men. And then there are things that are supernatural. Um, I know that some, some of the Theopolis guys like Peter Lightheart don't like this distinction, but I think it's just a, a basic common sense distinction that you read, uh, that you can just see very clearly, uh, in scripture that there's a, there's nature and then there is supernatural.

And when I say natural, there's two senses in which we may think of natural. There are things which are natural to man, just as man, not in relation to man being fallen. So this idea of like, you know, loving those who are closest to you.

Um, there are certain, uh, inclinations where we know that there is a God as the apostle Paul speaks of in Romans. And these are natural principles in man that would have been in man, regardless of whether he had fallen or not.

But we can also speak of nature in regard to, in relation to man as fallen. So we are naturally depraved sinners. We're not naturally like sinners as men, but we're naturally sinners in relation to Adam because we are the progeny of Adam because Adam as our forefather sin, thus sin is now natural to us, but not natural in the sense that this would have, that this is essential to the nature of man as God created man, God did not create man sinful rather man is now born sinful by virtue of his father, Adam's sin.

So grace is distinct. As I said, grace is distinguished from nature and that grace as a principle is not natural to man because the grace of God is a supernatural gift of God, whereby he saves men. And the scriptures testify that this is not, um, we can know that it's not natural because we know that God's grace is not in all men.

Uh, the apostle Paul in second Thessalonians chapter three, verse two says, and that we may be delivered from the unreasonable and wicked men for all men have not faith. And if all men have not faith, it is us, not natural to all men.

And this is how we can know that grace is something supernatural and not natural to men. Um, and kind of going back to our distinguishing of common grace in particular grace, common grace can be seen as essentially as God's continuous upholding of creation.

Despite man's sin, as though man had sinned against God, God still did not remove from them certain common notions, principles, and sparks of natural light. Man, even in his fallen nature can still know that there is a God.

And the apostle Paul testifies to this in the book of Romans, but it is in particular grace where God acts in a manner to bring men into full communion with him through Christ, through participation in Christ.

So grace would be God's benevolent favor towards us, which allows us to transcend nature in order to participate in God through Christ mediating work because God who is the eternal transcending God joined himself to creation in order to bridge the gap.

So in order for us to have salvation, it is necessary that the eternal God condescends to us, joins himself to us in order that we may be joined in him. And the same way that Athanasius said, God became man, that man may become God.

Obviously we don't become God in the same sense in that our essence is actually God because part of the essence of God is to be eternal. We are not eternal. Therefore we cannot be the essence of God. Nevertheless, by grace, we can participate in this and we participate through the gifts of faith that we receive in regeneration and sanctification because by grace through faith, we are made one with God.

We are justified by faith alone through his grace. So that in a nutshell is the grace of God.

Prevenient Grace, Regeneration, and the Roman Catholic View

That was really good, Matthew. Two things I wanted to explore a little bit more. One is speaking of Roman Catholics, this notion of prevenient grace. And when you're witnessing to a Catholic, even on the street, like they do have a concept of God's grace, it's necessary for salvation.

But obviously there's a difference between how they view grace, saving grace we're talking about, I suppose, and how we in the Protestant tradition view grace. You want to talk about that for a minute?

Yes, certainly. So in the reformed theological system of salvation, we have this understanding that this saying is very much popularized by R .C. Sproul that regeneration precedes faith because it is in regeneration where these gifts of grace are infused into us by the Spirit of God.

Because remember what the three supernatural gifts are, faith, hope, and love. We are justified by faith alone. Therefore, if in order to exercise faith, faith must be infused into us in order for us to be able to cultivate this faith, which justifies us.

So when we say that regeneration precedes faith, we're actually saying that infusion precedes imputation, which can scare some people because in the Roman Catholic conception of justification, it's purely infusatory.

I don't even know if infusatory is a word, but you all can probably understand what I'm getting at. But there's a sense in which there's no legal status to it. And even if there is in certain Catholic systems, because there's not one Roman Catholic system of salvation, there's various schools of thought within Rome that are deemed as acceptable.

But for them, it's like, even if there is a legal status, this legal status is upheld by our own continuous works of grace and things like that. But yes, Roman Catholics and Armenians and many people have this understanding of provenient grace whereby it's like regeneration.

Because regeneration occurs at baptism, which if you're an adult convert, you must make the decision to be baptized. There has to be a sense in which God's grace is working in you prior to that. And that happens in provenient grace, whereby in the gospel, there's a sense in which there's a certain notions of grace, which are given to all men that they may be able to accept, but their free will, they can delineate whether they want to accept this grace, use this gift that God has given him or reject it.

Whereas in a reformed understanding of things, because of irresistible grace, the transformative power of grace by virtue of the power of God is so powerful that man cannot do anything but accept that because of how powerful grace is.

So it's a higher view of grace. Now, having a higher view does not necessarily mean it's more acceptable. I would say that Rome has a higher view of the sacraments than reformed Protestants do. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that their view is right.

But in order to have real conversations, we have to have good understandings of our differing theological systems that we may dialogue well. So for them, provenient grace, you see this in Arminianism as well.

Basically, God's general grace makes it to where faith is possible to exercise. Whereas we would say that can't be the case because faith is only given by a particular sort of grace. It can't just be this common, provenient, or general notion of grace because faith is a particular gift.

And if faith unites you to Christ, part of benefits of union with Christ is receiving the gift of perseverance. And if we can just say that, oh, well, some people can be united to Christ but not receive all his benefits, that, to me, doesn't really seem to fit with the picture.

Of the New Testament very well. Yeah. So between common grace and saving grace, there's a big wall. They're separate, very distinct concepts. Whereas in Roman Catholic theology, it sounds like the distinction that we have is not present, or at least it's not.

Hear me, Matthew? Oh, I'm back.

I just, yeah. I didn't get that last part, but I think you're basically saying that the provenient, like there's not as hard line of a distinction, essentially.

Yeah. So like when Reformed people talk about common grace, they're talking, I think, more about providence. And when Roman Catholics are talking about provenient grace, I mean, they're sort of treating it as this common thing, but it's saving grace, really.

I mean, it's the kind of grace that we think is only for believers. And how do I put it? Well, I think you put it well, that the order is important here, that preceding the infusion, or preceding the righteousness that we get from Christ, there's an infusion from Christ, meaning the imputation comes after the infusion.

And I mean, this comes out in other places, right? Because I think even the concept of sanctification and justification, which are so distinct in the Protestant tradition, you don't see that same kind of thing in the Roman Catholic system or the Eastern Orthodox system, to be quite honest, because theosis is pretty much like that.

They think that we Protestants make this line that doesn't exist in scripture, but I would contend it does. So yeah. All right. So the other thing I wanted to ask about is I have been critical in the past of common grace.

And part of the reason is I discovered when I was doing some research on the social justice stuff, that people like Richard Mao and Tim Keller use common grace as their justification for all their leftism, right?

And of course, I guess you could use anything to justify your leftism. You could use loving your neighbor, or it's a gospel issue to justify your leftism. But the logic that at least Richard Mao used was that common grace was the...

Actually, let me read for you something from him. I just pulled it up because I wanted to remember. All right. So this is something I wrote down in my book, Christianity and Social Justice, okay? For Kuyper, for Abraham Kuyper, which Mao says that he represents, who knows, but for Kuyper, common grace had a redemptive element that enabled unbelievers to exercise human virtue and cooperate with believers towards shared political objectives.

Mao used this idea to broaden... And this is where I think there's a distinction that he smashes. He used that to broaden Christ's atoning work, that's his words, to apply to political institutions and the making of public policy.

And this is a quote from him. He said, the payment that Jesus made through his shed blood was a larger payment than many fundamentalists have seemed to think. He died to remove the stains of political corruption and all forms of human manipulation and exploitation.

And he bases this all on common grace, but it sounds like he's talking about saving grace. And so I don't know, because I haven't studied it deeply, but I know there's theologians who will say Kuyper thought that common grace was the basis for saving grace and that he kind of, I guess, compromised by letting this inner light, this spark of good in humanity kind of in the door.

And this is the Arminianism or something. But anyway, I don't know if you've read anything on that, but it's a fascinating topic. And it actually made me want to try to use the word providence over common grace, even though I know what most people mean when they say common grace, I get it.

And I'm not, I don't have a problem with what they mean by it, but I don't know if you have any thoughts, but if you... No, I mean, yeah, no, that's a fair concern.

And what often it comes down to is just exercising wisdom and how to use these theological concepts for practical purposes. And sure, you can make the claim that a fallen man still has reasoning faculties, though there are certain noetic effects of sin and things like that, nevertheless, God has still allowed us to have the light of reason.

The problem comes down to the fact that reason is not salvific. Reason cannot bring us to the triune God as revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ who died for the sins of humanity and rose on the third day and lived the perfect life.

But yeah, what it comes down to is being, you can still operate within the framework that common grace, or what I would like to say is like providence, God's upholding of man's rational faculties regardless of sin to say that, yes, even fallen man can have right conclusions.

There's a reason why Christians throughout all of history have utilized philosophy, even if it's not explicitly Christian ones. You see this with many of the fathers using Plato, sometimes going too far.

You see this in various fathers and medievals using Aristotle, again, sometimes going too far, but this is a part of the tradition is that these are fallen men, or even there are some people that aren't entirely sure on the salvific standing of someone like Immanuel Kant.

Nevertheless, you see Kantian influence and most post-Kantian thinking among Christians. Oftentimes, Christians will use philosophy because there's this understanding that this is using the world in order to come to certain conclusions about God.

And what ultimately is you have to remember though is there needs to be an exercise in wisdom and how we appropriate these things. And I think that appropriating any form of leftism, which is inherently goes against any form of hierarchy whatsoever, which I think that's entirely antithetical to the philosophical framework in which scripture sort of assumes.

Because scripture assumes that you have certain priors in order for you to understand it. There's this general assumption. And the only way in which scripture works is within a framework where hierarchy is not only like something that exists, but is a good.

And the problem with leftist thought is that leftists conceptualize hierarchy as inherently unjust because for them, justice is equity or equity in outcome. When in reality, that's not how justice works.

And those who are not leftist would say that hierarchy is embedded within the created order. It is a good because God is the ultimate hierarch. And thus, it doesn't make sense to appropriate leftist systems of thought through common grace because that paradigm of thinking is inherently antagonistic towards scripture.

I think what it enabled Keller to do, and Mao, is to categorize things that weren't innately Christian. For example, Keller writes about in Every Good Endeavor, this painting thing his church did where they got painters together.

And some of them weren't Christians. It was somewhat of an outreach, but it had this higher purpose of worship and reflecting the world that God created. And it's all under this banner of common grace.

But what it does is it allows you to see Hollywood movies that aren't Christian, that might even have sinful things in it. And then you find the elements of common grace in there. And now you categorize that as that's Christian.

So you can then cooperate with the world on different initiatives. I remember from the book Woke Church, Eric Mason says, oh, we should learn the gospel from the denazification program in Germany or the anti-apartheid program in South Africa.

These guys weren't, that has nothing to do with the gospel. But he was trying to use this notion of common grace and muddy it and merge it with saving grace to then categorize things that are not Christian as Christian.

And I think what you're saying is actually so common notions, meaning things that everyone has that God has wired into creation that are gifts from him. That's what common grace, if you want to properly use it, that's what you should be referring to.

So it's not like this lens or worldview or it's not something that you as a non-believer can do that pleases God and that reflects Christian thinking. It's not Christian, it's common. It's just what God has given to every man.

And anyway, I'm recovering myself from some heavy, deep worldview thinking that I suppose over the course of decades, I imbibed. And it challenges me because I have to just pay attention to my language and like, what am I communicating here?

But just because people abuse the term doesn't mean I guess the term is always bad. That's maybe my point. So, all right, well, we can get off of this. We've been talking about this for almost half an hour, which is cool.

Yeah, there we go.

There's some comments coming in. We got someone watching from Liberia. That's impressive.

Look at that.

Yeah. Matthew, have you seen what's going on in, oh goodness, I'm so tired. I'm forgetting the name of the country, Syria. Syria, have you seen what's. The Christians are getting killed there.

And so forth? I haven't looked into it too much, but I think that was sort of like what would be expected if the Assad's regime collapsed. So, it's pretty unfortunate to see.

Yeah. It's not on the TruthScript website or anything. There's no article. But I did mention when the regime was toppled that I would really appreciate it if someone out there who had connections to a Christian ministry that did something about this would reach out.

I really didn't get many leads that ended up going anywhere when I asked that. So, if anyone still has anything, let me know. Matt Borish says, Mao sounds like Schleiermacher's moral influence theory of the atonement.

It's been a while since I've read Schleiermacher. Maybe, maybe. It sounds like liberation theology to me. Dr. Bob says, I know how to offend the ADL and Stone Choir. Okay, well, I have ascended, Matthew, to Tim Keller's third way.

I have transcended the political divide. No, I'm just a traditional conservative. I'm trying to look at things not just through that, but through my Christian understanding. And I don't know, that's how I sort of process stuff.

Mick Daily Review says, some folks use common mercies instead since grace is technically reserved for those who are under the grace of Christ. I'm trying to think if I've ever heard that. I don't think I've ever.

Heard that term, common mercies. Yeah, I haven't heard that. But part of the reason why I would find that it's permissible to still use the term grace is because, well, grace in its particular sense is reserved for those who are united to Christ.

Nevertheless, all of creation subsists through Christ upholding it. Because I think of Hebrews 1, 1 through 2, where it talks about how like, you know, it's through, I don't remember like what the actual verse says, like word for word, but I do remember that it speaks about how, you know, all of creation is sustained through Christ.

I'm kind of, I'm looking it up right now, where, forgive me for using NIV for this, it may not be verses 1 through 2, this is just what came up. But no, I mean, verse 3, it talks about the son is a radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being sustaining all things by his powerful world.

So nevertheless, divine providence is exercised through Christ's sustenance of the world. And in that sense, we can speak of a notion of common grace, but I can understand, like, I think I would err on the side of caution and using common grace.

The only reason I'm somewhat comfortable with it is because I do know that it's not completely foreign to the tradition. There is a sense in which like God is graceful in a general sense with creation, given that it has fallen and yet he continues to sustain and uphold it.

So that's why I'm a little more comfortable with saying common grace.

Well, common mercy to me is, I mean, that's like withholding a punishment that's deserved. I don't know. It seems like it's more of, that's a negative, and it seems like giving reign on the righteous and the unrighteous, that's more of a positive.

So I don't know. I guess I'm fine if someone wants to use that. But anyway, if you're streaming right now, you have a comment, leave it on Facebook or X or YouTube, and I'll be sure to try to get to it.

Joshua, the Conquering King, and Christological Typology

Well, since we are actually over half an hour in, we'll probably just do one article. And I want to see if I have this set up. I do. I want to do an article called a footstool for a king and just talk about this interesting concept.

And I don't, I'm still digesting it. I'm not exactly sure what I think, but the article makes the case here. Oh, that's not it. Hold on. I'll pull it up here. There we go. Is that it? There we go. Okay.

So the article talks about Joshua. Now, the funny thing is actually just went over Joshua in family devotions. When Trump won, I was like, all right, we got to conquer the land here. Let's read Joshua in family devotions.

And so he goes through some of this. He connects it though to these, Joshua's conquering the promised land to messianic Psalms. And so he's, he quotes Psalm. I should say that the, he here is Philip Nair, who is a blue collar worker with a BA in biblical studies and Christian philosophy.

So that's, I just want to give credit where credit's due, but he quotes Psalm 28, ask of me, and I will make the nations, your heritage and the ends of the earth, your possession. And then he relates this to the conquering of Canaan and draws a parallel there.

He talks about, he says, Joshua was a man among boys and a warrior among men. He was a man who bore the marks of devotion to Yahweh and a conviction to lead. Exodus 33, 11 reveals Joshua's willingness to depart from the presence of God in the tent of meeting as he lingered there in the spying out of the land of Canaan.

Joshua, along with Caleb, believe the promise of God, even among giants. We remember that story. He says, born out of that passionate devotion came a warrior who led the Israelites. Joshua 10 gives us the account of the five Kings.

And that's an amazing story. I mean, they made a movie on Amazon or a mini series on David, but they should really make one about Joshua. I guess maybe it would be too violent. I don't know, but it'd be cool though.

It would be pretty awesome if they made one about Joshua. Lots of killing, lots of destruction. And then let's see if I can get to the main thrust here. So he says, there's a prophetic image beginning to form in the wording of the story of that particular battle in Joshua 10.

The nations have been given to Joshua and the people of Israel. And it says in Joshua 1, 3, that every place on which the sole of your foot treads, I have given it to you. Joshua 10, 24 says, come near, put your feet on the necks of these Kings for thus Yahweh will do to all your enemies with whom you fight.

And this sounds a lot like Psalm 2, the language about Christ or God conquering. Kiss the son, right? And lest he not be angry. So anyway, he gets into Daniel 7, 1 Corinthians 15, just this idea of the reign of Christ.

Now, the question I suppose is like, is this a foreshadowing of Christ? Is this an attempt to teach us about Christ's kingdom? Which the author I think is convinced of. I don't know. I don't know. And it probably will depend on your hermeneutic to some extent of if you have like a, like more of a Christological hermeneutic where you see these things jump out.

Even when they're not, not explicitly said, you just see the parallels or, you know, if you're a grammatical historical guy, you're kind of hesitant about those things, but I don't know if you have an opinion on this, Matthew, what do you think?

I think that, that the way that the New Testament views the Old Testament is very much in a Christological sense. I, I hesitate to say Christocentric, not because there's anything wrong with it. Just, I don't know that buzzword just like, for some reason, just keeps getting me a little bit.

Yeah. Even though Christocentric is probably fine, but no, I think it's fine to interpret the Old Testament that way. And I think it's very much possible to hold like the grammatical historical method with a more Christological sense.

I think that there's balance. I think that, you know, this is how third way I am. I think that some people in the grammatical historical completely neglect any, any shadows of Christ, because they just want to focus on what does this literally mean?

What is the ancient near Eastern historical context of this? What are this blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Or versus like the more Christological where it's okay. So, you know, Moses went into Egypt with, you know, the, or left Egypt with 10 baskets of this.