Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism Discussed

That's all that we need. Only sufficient, but the only thing that couldn't be done for okay.

So we don't need baptism then because it's the only thing. Is it. Is it the only thing or is it not do you need to be baptized or not? Because if you need to be baptized, it's not sufficient.

It is true that you are an extremely skilled debater and you're good.

Opening Banter and Show Introduction

This is apologetics live to answer your questions your host from striving for eternity ministries. We are live apologetics live here to answer your most Challenging questions about God in the Bible. I can guarantee you that I can answer any Question you have about God and the Bible you doubt that come on in give the challenge.

Let's go to apologetics live comm give me your hardest question. And when I say I Don't know just remember. That's a perfectly good answer. I Didn't say it would be I'd give an answer you like I just said I can answer any question You have about God and the Bible.

This is a ministry of striving for eternity. Encourage you guys to check out striving for eternity. It's also a podcast that is on the Christian podcast community. So you can check out the over 50 vetted podcasts that we have there at Christian podcast community.

I guarantee you're gonna find something to listen to. Because we got so much with such variety that you're gonna find something you can enjoy. Something that whether you want homeschooling you want some for women for men for Apologetics for sermons we got it.

We got you covered and So we we would just encourage you to check that out find something you're gonna want to listen to and I will say That you're gonna find Probably more than you can listen to in a week.

So Who's the ones you want? But if you want go to Christian podcast community as its own podcast feed and you can listen to everything now. Let me just I see we have a new member on YouTube so we are so thank you Isaac he became a new member on YouTube and you can support us there.

It's one of the many ways you can support us. He said great subject tonight looking forward to gaining a better understanding me, too we're gonna we're gonna discuss why that's so important in in a moment, but let me just say if you I was saying you if you want support us you can go to striving for attorney org and Slash support you could support us there if you so desire now, I'm gonna bring in Joseph and I think I live America.

Let me take this off so people can see the spelling of your last name. There we go Joseph Weissman. For some who may not pick up on that that last name. Hmm. It sounds a little bit. Oh Jewish.

Right, yeah, it is. My grandma is from Vienna and her name was Weissman and so that name carried over. When she came over to the UK My dad carried it on and so I'm a Weissman my children of Weissman's.

Yeah, so I embrace it. Well, I'm Jewish on both sides. My dad is an evangelist to Jewish people in London and He met my mom when he was going door-to-door and he met an old lady and she said. Well, she wasn't interested in Jesus, but she said we'll come back, you know, you meet my granddaughter.

She's one in a million. She'll do anything for you. She arranged dates and the next time my dad came back. My mom was there and sometime later. They got married. She has a 40th wedding anniversary.

That's neat and.

We may need translation for you tonight. What what language do they speak over there in the UK?

British mate.

Yeah, I have a friend of mine. Someone actually asked his son that when his son was here in the States. What do you what do they speak there in the UK? He goes English. It's where you got it from. And then you butchered it.

No, I've been. I live in Oklahoma now, so I've been here nearly. Well over four and a half years. My wife's American. We met on social media, so I'm all for social media and you know. The substance was the same as a style and we got married and we were happy with each other.

So we now have two kids Jacob and Abigail. Who? Jacob's three Abigail's one and. You might hear them in the background. But hopefully, you know. You won't but yeah, if you do that fine.

Yeah, that's fine. And so so let's let's talk about why we decided to do this. You and I spoke for the very first time today but you reached out to Chris Arnzen from iron sharpens iron radio and. Well, why don't you explain what you were looking to do and then we can explain how you and I got connected.

Sure, I Recently did a debate. Peter communion, I'm a presbyterian. So I'm a Peter Baptist not a Peter communionist.

So I think okay for some folks just explain the the differences explain what they are. So because not everyone may know the words so.

Yeah, so Peter baptism is you baptize the infants not not every infant but of children born to Christians and Communion would simply be you give them the Lord's Supper. So I would say yes to baptism no to the Lord's Supper for for young children and my opponent would say yes to both and The debate went really well and it just encouraged me because there was a conversation I really wanted to have as well as much as I want to discuss that I really wanted to get into covenant theology and Dispensationalism because I come from not only a Jewish and messianic background but also a Dispensationalist background and that's where I was at for a number of years and the last thing I wanted to I Really was against covenant theology and it was a slow journey to become To get into covenant theology, but I remember the frustrations I had as a dispensationalist Interacting with covenant theology and likewise as a covenant theologian Interacting with dispensationalism and I thought that's a conversation.

I haven't really heard On the subjects of hermeneutics and I really wanted to hear it on hermeneutics I thought it would be valuable. And so I asked Chris Hey, is there anyone you can think of and he you were the you the number one the go-to guy that he thought I know.

Someone so I was really intrigued and he put us in touch and we chatted today. So I'm glad to be here and that's the background to it. Yeah, so we're planning at least hopefully.

To do a live debate on iron sharpens iron radio. So and and really what we was is you and I started talking and you you didn't have a lot of time and I Just said hey, you want to just come on the show and we can have this discussion to kind of see what cuz I'm new to you.

I don't know anything about you. I saw the one debate you did.

And.

You know, it wasn't wasn't a lot I don't I didn't know your views as far as dispensational and coming at theology. So I figured why don't we just do this? Live in this is what I would have done on the phone anyway with you Right is to understand so we keep to understand our positions because when I do a debate At least and I think I shared a little bit of this with you.

We didn't have a lot of times when I debate I'm not debating to win. I'm debate the the in my mind the purpose of a debate is to educate the audience. It's not to try to so much convince the opponent.

Although if you do, hey, that's great. Right, you want to be so convincing that even your opponent? Will he to me? I loved the time that I had a debate with him an imam and at the end of the debate He took a Bible from me and said he would he would read you know, I gave him just the New Testament.

He realized that was about the size of the Quran was like I I can read this and he people in the audience were Gasp that he would do that which made me say yeah, okay. They know that you know I kind of won on some points and he's he's he started I think thinking about it because he even at one point in that debate When whose audience Q &A they asked a question.

He actually tried to stop me from answering and he said to the audience. We don't he Understands Islam and I was like no. No, I want to answer that. He's like no, it's okay. It's okay and I was the reason he didn't want me to answer because I understand a little bit of Islam and understand to Kia and knew that they were lying to protect the faith and He knew I was gonna call them out for it as I did.

They didn't know it but he did and so so yeah so when we do debates and this is the thing a lot of people don't understand with debates the debate a Good debate at least is Where you have your your premise that each side is trying to you have a position that one is for ones against you're going to be making arguments for and Defending that and then someone's going to counter it and you go back and forth the goal of it is going to be in the a Lot of it's in the cross-examination where you can dig deeper and start asking Questions one-on-one and in a lot of what we do tonight will probably be a little bit of that Really just so we can understand each other's positions.

I mean you have a very interesting take and so Let me look up. This is what Chris sent me. If I could pull this up as the the topic of debate Did him to them so I'm just trying to find where he where Chris sent it to me.

You probably know the the topic so I should just let you go for it instead of looking.

Sure. Um, I think I said to him The the topic would be which hermeneutic is more Literal the dispensationalist one or the covenant one and I thought it's an interesting question because usually Covenant theology will allow dispensationalism to say it's more literal but but dispensationalism allows for metaphor and figures of speech so so It's not a dispensationalism takes everything literally like right or you can correct me if oh, yeah plus Covenant theology there is a way in which we take scripture literally if you look back in into the Reformation.

The Roman Catholic Church at the time had four senses of scripture and I struggled to remember these the first is a literal meaning Which is whatever the Holy Spirit intends. The second I believe was the there's the allegorical meaning then there was the There's like a universal moral lesson.

I think that was a tropical meaning and then also anagogical sense which is The meaning that you can take away and apply to the church and I probably messed that up a little bit. But basically they believed in the quadriga the four senses and the Reformation came along and said no there's only one sense the literal sense and they define it as whatever the Holy Spirit literally intended and That would also be my hermeneutic.

So now there are places in scripture where I think the Holy Spirit literally intended a Metaphor where a dispensationalist might take it as now this is a one-for-one correspondence with more or less what's going to happen and that's where I think the Interesting thing is gonna lie now, you know, we may end up changing slightly the question to one.

You know if we're both more really familiar with but that's basically the angle I want to get at. So I'm really keen to hear your thoughts and you're just hearing that like initially.

Yeah, and and yeah the way that Chris has sent it to me was that covet because it was covenant. Theology is more literal than dispensationalism. Because you have to have a pro we have to have one side that's pro.

You can't have both being a pro by the way. Care and Bible share fellowship says. You have says will you have two Jews have three opinions? Well, yeah, probably.

That.

You know, you're very astute there. You realize that we were good at debate like this thing like I'm debating so folks I have this this will be two debates with two Jewish believers as many of you here know I got a debate with coming up with dr. Michael Brown another Jewish believer.

And and the reason he and I are looking forward to it is because as you guys regular here know I've said Jewish people are raised to debate. It's just like a family activity or at least around the dinner table you'd often have the father would just throw an argument out and choose two children to be prone and Khan and have to debate it why it sharpens the skill sharpens the thinking and We were trained to do that kind of thinking without the emotion because once basically once you use the emotion you lost.

That was the rule and so When you get people that are Trained that way. I mean, dr. Michael Brown and I already had some discussions. It's it's just we're looking forward to we realize we got it's gonna be hard because we want to go off on this tangent that.

Tangent way, so we're probably gonna maybe do some follow-ups afterwards on different all the different tangents. We'd like to to discuss but It's something where there's there's not the let's be mean to one another so debates not a bad thing.

So, let me get to it to what you had said so. Yeah, I think that. The way that I refer to it right because you're gonna want to in the debate you want to respond to me not. You know like skull dispensationalism or or something like that and there are different views of dispensationalism.

There's known as classic which would say you take a normal a literal hermeneutic. I would I would be then there's Ryrie's version of you know, and then there's progressive and I don't know. I'd probably be more in the.

That's the only way I'm progressive is on dispensationalism.

But.

You know, I'm not sure with them how where I would land with those differences they have but the way I would describe is There's there's three Seneca numb that which you can't have it without. So what are the essentials to dispensationalism?

I would say a normal hermeneutic what I mean by that is There are times that when you have a figure of speech I'm so hungry. I can eat a cow. You don't believe that I could literally eat a cow. Do you Joseph?

No, depends how long it's been since you ate. But yeah, I I doubt you you will literally eat a cow.

That's because you haven't seen me eat. But but. And and and to answer your question as of today, I think I'm on day four of a fast. So so yeah, I haven't I'm really hungry. So maybe I could I Have had 60 ounces of steak in one sitting.

I'll just say that but that's not a whole cow and so you can you know that that's a figure of speech. So you the literal way of interpreting that? Is to understand it in the genre of an Illustration of it, you know not to be taken as I can literally eat the cow, but the literal Sense of it is an illustration.

All right, and so or in that case more of an exaggeration so that's a normal and so a normal hermeneutic leads to a Distinction between Israel and the church Israel as a nation versus the church two separate groups that God works with but I would say that there's there's Continuity and discontinuity.

There's a lot of continuity in those that are believing Israel and believing Church and There's discontinuity as the nation of Israel and the global body Church. So I would see a distinction. And then the third is a View that the Bible the goal of the Bible is God's glory doxological versus Christological.

So Doxological meaning that I'm gonna see a book say I always use as the examples the Song of Solomon. I see the Song of Solomon not about Jesus and the church, which wouldn't have been around for a thousand years, but I you know unless you're gonna say that the Israel is the Old Testament Church, so granted but I would say that that is a picture of a Marriage is a wedding is really what you're seeing and a godly marriage glorifies God.

So those would be the way that I would do it. So I wouldn't say that everything has to be absolutely literal in that sense.

Right, no, I get that but would you say I'm gonna. I'm gonna start, you know prodding a little bit just to see Agreement lies and this is just a question. It's not gotcha. I'm just I want to really understand.

So would you say that obviously you'd say dispensationalism has the normal reading of Scripture? So therefore would you say the covenant theology? Doesn't read Scripture normally or More so consistently in every area would that be your critique of it that is not consistent?

No, actually, I would argue it it is consistent within its harmonical system and and this is the thing that after I talked to you on the phone that I was looking forward to with this debate with you because Here's what I find most people when they talk about dispensationalism.

They talk about it as an end times view. And once someone does that I'm go. Okay, you don't know dispensationalism. You want to argue it as a hermeneutical view and I went wow. Okay, I that's when when when Chris Arnson came to me with that went.

Okay. This is interesting. We're discussing covenant theology and dispensationalism from a hermeneutical perspective and folks that don't know what hermeneutics is hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation says how we interpret and everyone of you listening are Practicing hermeneutics right now.

You're hearing what Joseph is saying you hear when I'm saying you are interpreting those the question is what are the rules you're using and Applying To that interpretation. How are you coming to the interpretation?

And and is your interpretation what we're saying what we're actually meaning. And that's the goal of it, right? So when somebody Well, no, I mean no one likes being taken out of context right and God especially I think John Calvin I'll paraphrase because well, he didn't write it in English, but In the translation of what he said in a paraphrase is that when you take God's Word out of context You no longer have God's Word.

You have man's word and so That's really what hermeneutics is. It's are we getting back to what God meant by what he wrote and now so to answer your question Joseph I think that where I would disagree with covenant theology would be more in the view of.

Interpreting.

Scripture through those covenants, especially the covenant of grace, which we don't see explicit in Scripture now. I'll just say this because I want to clarify because I have this argument with my buddy Matt slick that we've debated the covenant theology and dispensational in many times.

The issue is is that I would actually maybe argue that Dispensationalism is more covenantal than covenant theology. Why do I say that. Because. Like Matt used to make the argument. He doesn't anymore because we've debated enough.

He used to say well covenants are in the Bible, but dispensations are not. Well. Yeah, the word that we get dispensations from is there once but it's not in the sense of what? Dispensationalism is. But covenants are in the Bible and I would say the way the covenants are I would argue They're more in line with dispensationalism than covenant theology.

Why? Because every one of the dispensations is based on a covenant and. So that's what defines the dispensation when we say a dispensation. It's just an economy or way God works with his people. And so every time there was a new covenant.

With God's people that created a new dispensation.

So.

Dispensationalism is based on every one of the covenants. If people say well, there's seven dispensations where they get it from seven covenants. That's where they get it from. We're dispensing covenant.

Theology would have three covenants right. The covenant of grace the the covenant of works. The and then the new covenant. Now I'm gonna just clarify for feet people who may be dispensational and just heard something for the first time.

Do not think that a covenant of works is a works based salvation. Okay, that's. That's a fallacy that some dispensationalists will make. In fact, let me tell you a story Joseph. You'll probably get a kick out of it.

So I was taking a class in seminary on in.

Dispensationalism.

And I'm reading and I'm gonna paraphrase this but I'm reading a dispensationalist and I tend to read both sides. I want to be able to argue both sides of an argument. Train that way, right? And so I'm sitting there and I'm reading the this dispensationalist and dispensational says well, you know Covenant theology believes in two ways of salvation.

The Covenant works in the old the Covenant works grace in the new the new covenant. But we dispensationalists believe that ever since the fall it has been by grace alone. I went well, okay. That's what I believe.

I guess that makes me dispensational. However, then I started reading the Covenant theologian who said, you know, the problem is with dispensationalists. They have two ways of salvation works in the Old Testament Schofield's reference notes the first edition and Grace in the new but we Covenant theologians believe that ever since the fall it was by grace.

Anyway, wait, wait I opened both books. I'm like wait, they're both saying the same thing. Basically publishers are making a lot of money killing a lot of trees. Causing lots of arguments and yet here's an area where both sides Are making the same exact strongman arguments of the other side using different evidence and then agreeing with one another.

Hmm, right. Well, I'm speaking of cutting down trees. I should show you a book. I've been working on you'd be interested. It's based on what you're saying. Francis Roberts. No, he was an English writer and this nobody's gonna be like a six or seven volumes.

Yeah, well you you realize right there what the problem is, right? You said he's an English writer. Americans don't care about anyone else in the world, but Americans right we don't come on. You're in America.

Don't you see our news? We never talk about what goes on in England or anywhere. You know, I learned more about what was going on in our country UK then from when I was here.

Yeah, I mean it's good we were broadening our horizons but he he wrote this like 1800 page 1700 page folio book in tiny writings in the periods and times talking about Covenant theology and he referred to each covenant as an Administration of the covenant of grace or a dispensation.

So I don't mind using that language. That's that's fine. But what he argued was that basically you had a covenant of works before the fall and by covenant he meant an agreement between God's man, even if not expressly set down as a Contract which people sign which there are some more formalities say with Abraham and especially with Moses.

There are formalities there, but he'd say the essence of it was was there with Adam and then he moved through all the covenants of grace and he'd say that every Old Testament covenant was a Covenant of grace or an administration of the covenant of grace in a field of 212.

It speaks of the covenants plural of promise so how was each covenant the covenant of promise because each one promised Christ and. And therefore the condition to be saved was the same in each covenant which is to have faith in Christ who is promised and when Christ comes he performs the mercy promised in the covenants according according to Luke 172 so for Roberts, this was the New covenant or the covenant of performance in which the promise mercy is performed so I've got like volume one volume volume ones about covenant of works and The covenant of grace made with Adam straight after the fall covenant but to volume two is about the covenant made with Abraham volume three.

Pardon my wrong name. Sorry this one. If anyone's if anyone's listening to the podcast We're gonna say you want to watch this because he's actually trying to hold up these three thick books in one hand.

You know Here we go, right. But basically the third one is going to be most interesting I guess to this discussion because Roberts takes the view which is now the mainline Presbyterian view that the covenant made with Moses was a covenant of grace.

Now the reason Andrew when you mentioned that Some dispensation is say well covenant theology Was law and now grace whereas others see it as grace throughout. Well, I would say that's because 1689 or we call particular Baptist theology would see the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of works.

As a republication this is popular in Presbyterian circles. In what is it climbing in circles to. To view the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of works of Presbyterians the mainstream ones would see it as a covenant of grace.

And that's where I think the most interesting question lies because it's is there Continuity between even the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant in Christ. Are they all part of the same covenant of grace?

That's kind of that might be the most interesting issue to get into and I wasn't holding on the books just to prove my point. It's just yeah. Yeah straight as well.

Well, Melissa is asking what's the name of the books and author? So can you repeat that for folks? Yeah, it's Francis Roberts.

Well, we just set up a book company called buried press and buried is Hebrew for Covenant. So it's. Go to www .berith .com Berithpress .com.

Was it BER? Let me type in the chat. Yeah, you can type it in the chat. Oh.

Okay, it's gonna connect and I've connected some. Okay, I'm gonna allow this.

Okay.

Berithpress .com So it failed to post but BERITH. And then PRESS .com. And really what I wanted to do was to bring out the best work possible on Covenant theology So that everyone would have something To actually interact with.

I ended up doing over 8 ,000. Yeah, that's right. There were over 8 ,000 footnotes. We're only into volume 3 and most of those are scriptural references. So it's it's really interesting because he he deals directly with the Hebrew and they're the kind of discussions I think are needed.

I don't think as Covenant theology. We've made the argument as best we could with all the best works I think. So that's what I'm trying to do is get the best works out there. To contribute to the discussion.

So yeah, that's just okay. So those books are available out there.

You're at your site. Yeah. Okay, cool. Well may have to get them. So so so if you could help me and I suppose this is this is just. You know, we were Joseph and I were talking on the phone where we just we only had like 10 minutes before he had to go and then we were Like we're gonna call let's talk to each other later and I just why don't we do this in front of all you guys so this is the you guys are getting a little bit of.

How I prepare for debates with with people as I like to have a discussion. We had the debate you guys saw on the channel the debate with the atheist on is Christianity true. Well when we went to dinner the night before I talked to Bill and kind of did some of the same kind of discussion try to understand because I don't want to misrepresent the opponent that I'm debating and Therefore I want to make sure We we get the discussion going and so, you know, I had asked Joseph Hey before the debate, would you be able to share with me?

You know your opening remark, you know, you open because an opening is or is prepared. And so I asked if we could do that.

You know.

You know if whether it's written out scripted out or not you know, but at least share the notes and you had agreed and I'll share my notes one as I have them but As long as Chris doesn't say it's like the debate is Monday.

That I won't have time then but help me understand. So why. Like why do you say that? Covenant theology is more literal than dispensational and and with that could you tell me what you mean by literal?

Sure, I think. By literal I mean it sticks to the literal sense of Scripture in terms of what the Holy Spirit literally intended. So when we interpret things Literally, well, there's two ways the word literal has been used and that's where it gets confusing.

One is Whatever the Holy Spirit literally intends. That's what he meant. It's like, let me think of an example.

This is where you're thinking of example could is is when you're defining literal. Yeah, is it any different than how I define normal?

No, I think I think it's the same well Let me tell you how I would interpret like any biblical text right and then maybe you could tell me How you would interpret it according to the normal sense you're saying, right?

Do that so I would say there are three things you need one is you need to look at the original languages. Or a very good translation. You need to see exactly what words are used and like the tense and the whole Sentence, right?

What language is used? Secondly, you need to compare it with the context. So you need to know what's the context what's gone before what's coming afterwards? You need to know other books of the Bible.

Say for example, you're not gonna get a full understanding of Kings if you're not also Got Chronicles or you're not gonna understand Deuteronomy without Genesis. You need you need a knowledge of them all.

And also you need to know what's gone before in the chapter what's gone so if you open your Bible to a random page and it says go and do likewise and You're just gonna do the thing Whatever whatever you've read before even if it says he went out and hang himself.

And you now you turn to say go and do likewise without looking up the context. That's not reading in context, right? So the first point is the original languages second way is context and the third point Would be the analogy of faith the analogy of faith is Romans 12 6 where it says let us prophesy according to the analogy of faith the analogous feed a and that means comparing The scripture with all the other scriptures to make sure there's one harmonious message so even if for an interpretation Might even if on the plain reading it might seem to clash with another part of scripture before taking that interpretation.

I'd go and make sure it doesn't clash with anything and make sure it can be Harmonized and I can give examples of that, but I won't stop there to let you you talk and See if there are any differences there.

Helps if I unmute first though, right? I mean that that usually helps if I unmute and then try talking. So, okay, you said Romans 12 6. Yeah, okay. So that says since we have gifts that Differ according to the gift of grace given to us. Each of us is to exercise them accordingly if prophecy according to the proportion of his faith and so.

And you you read it differently. At which translation did you read that out of. Or was that oh.

I'm okay. So the Greek word is analogous feed a. Okay, so I don't think any translations translate it as analogy of faith. I think the theologians take the literal Greek term Feed a and turn it into analogy of faith.

Yes, it's proportion of faith. And I see that as pretty much the same thing proportionally. Not how much faith subjectively you have inside you but basically was the objective message of Scripture and That's how you prophesy that's how you preach or that's how you do hermeneutics is through understanding the whole message of Scripture.

Yeah, and I.

Was gonna say we disagree until you said the last thing but maybe it's the so the. The word here is as the meaning of in relationship to. You know a proportion but in relationship to or a relational like a right relationship a comparison.

It can be an analogy in an analogy a ratio or proportion. So it's.

I.

Don't. You know, I could dig into it more to see how it's used in. Yeah, I wouldn't be able to do it live.

Probably but.

Yeah, I'm just looking in Kittle to see quickly if it if it gives it as an analogy versus because you used it as an analogy of. You know, so there'd be two things that I'd say with it the the specific verse.

And.

I agreed with everything up until that you brought this verse up. So the the verse is talking about the gifts right. That we should use the gifts accordingly.

So it.

It is when we're saying the prophecy if you're saying that's that's Interpretation, I don't know that I'd say that's interpretation. It could be if you're start to stay saying that that's preaching and but the following one is is the Next verse is if service in his serving and if teaching in his teaching therefore in prophecy as he's prophesying it'd be in You know saying that the prophecies in in accordance with his faith.

That's the same with the service in the teaching. The exhortation he who exhorts in his exhortation he who gives with Liberty. He who leads with diligence he who shows mercy with cheerfulness. So in each one of these It's that portion of faith tied to that so.

So I'm just wrestling through a text with you saying like I'm I Guess I wouldn't come to the same conclusion of the interpretation there of this.

But.

That aside to what you had said, I think I think we'd agree right the the Greek. And now For those who are listening watching the I don't think either one of us are saying that you have to have a good Fluent knowledge of Greek or good handling of the Greek language to know the Word of God a good faithful English translation or translation into whatever language is.

Is.

Perfectly fine. But when you start debating things when you're digging deeper and there are times where a single word in the original language can make a difference and There's times even where we see Paul making an argument off of the specific word meaning whether it's.

Whether it's plural or singular. In Galatians Paul makes the argument and he said seed not seeds. So in other words one seed from Abraham Messiah Jesus and not all of Abraham's offspring. So he's he was pointing out that one.

Just a specific, you know that plural versus singular Makes a difference that he's saying. Hey, this was specifically Singular for a reason we would make the argument when we look at the plural pronouns referring to God.

That's specifically for reason we build a doctrine based on the specific use of Hebrew words. And so there I think we're in complete agreement. You're nodding your head. So that's good. You know when it comes to context I would agree.

We start with the immediate context so we don't jump around how's this word. What does this word mean in other passages? We start with the immediate and some people have put in some examples that you and I could take a look at.