Book Study: The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom (Part One)

Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology in Covenant Theology

All right, we're going to go ahead and jump right into it. We're going to start with chapter one, when he talks about biblical and systematic theology. I would say that for sure, biblical theology and a proper understanding of systematic theology is going to guide you in the way in which you understand covenant theology and the unfolding of the biblical doctrine.

Justin, maybe give us your thoughts on just, I think, how important biblical and systematic theology is to covenant theology, and then maybe start with a definition of biblical theology, and we'll kind of go from there.

Yeah, so they're both important, biblical and systematic theology. I might start by just clarifying the difference. I'm sure many are familiar, but systematic theology, we'll start there, is an exercise of summarizing doctrine from all of scripture.

So whenever we teach doctrine, or we even look at confessions of faith, for example, we are looking at work of systematic theology, where saints through history corporately together have looked to God's word and asked questions.

What does God's word teach about this subject or this subject? What does it teach about God? What does it teach about man? What does it teach about sin? What does it teach about the person and work of Jesus, et cetera?

That is systematic theology, as we survey all of scripture and make summarizing statements about truth and doctrine. Biblical theology would be, as the term would imply, looking at the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

You look at the unfolding story of redemption, and we then aim to understand that grand narrative and where certain passages, certain texts fit within that grand narrative, and we try to understand the flow of redemptive history.

So you guys have heard us use terms at Theocast all the time, like the redemptive historical framework of scripture. Well, for us, that is effectively synonymous and functionally synonymous with biblical theology.

It's the grand story of scripture. What is the point of the Bible? And then answering that question, the point of scripture is God's plan of redemption accomplished through Christ. We then would understand the parts of the Bible in light of that whole.

And so it's very clear that both of these things are going to be really essential to our conversation on covenant theology. We've got to understand the grand story of scripture, the unfolding nature of revelation.

But then also we're going to be surveying that unfolding plan of redemption. We're going to be surveying all of the Bible and then making doctrinal statements about what's going on in certain portions of scripture and how we would then understand God's covenants, how we would understand His work of redemption in light of these covenants that He makes and the like.

So that's maybe how I'd get it started in thinking about those two things. John, please add to that.

Yeah, I grew up around systematic theology, had a decent systematic theology handed to me in seminary and in college, but one of the things that wasn't handed to me was a biblical theology. And I would say understanding all of scripture and the point of all of scripture, and I would even, when you look at the Bible and you look at the context of the Bible, you know, we are taught to look at the grammar, to look at the immediate context, and then, you know, the greater context, which typically is, you know, the pericope and then the chapter and then the book.

But what biblical theology teaches you to do and the understanding of it is to look at a specific text in light of all of scripture and the overarching purpose and nature of scripture or the overarching story of scripture, which what biblical theology teaches you to do is understand that all of scripture fits within this umbrella or this overarching story of God redeeming sinners, which starts right in the beginning in Genesis three.

And that is going to influence the way. So once, so my first introduction into covenant theology and reformed theology was biblical theology. And once I understood that, it was easy for me to then put all the pieces together.

Covenant theology seemed strange and I heard a lot of weird things said about it. You know, it mysticizes the text, it pushes Jesus into the Old Testament where he's not there. They, there's a lot of allegorizing of the text.

And when I realized what was actually happening, biblical theology helped kind of set that straight. And just go ahead.

Real brief interjection, John. I think that it's going to become increasingly clear over these four sessions that we do that covenant theology is inextricably linked to that redemptive historical understanding of scripture that we talk about all the time.

So for us at Theocast, like this is sort of a pull the curtain back moment. Maybe we don't, we would not know how to talk in a redemptive historical way apart from covenant theology. And so this is really critical for our understanding of the whole grand narrative of scripture.

And as has been said by many people through history, it's entirely right to say this and think this. If we do not understand the whole of scripture, we will do terrible things with the parts. And so this matters a ton for preaching.

I mean, like without this kind of framework to orient yourself in scripture and to understand like, where in the world are we and what is God doing and, and where does this text stand in relation to Christ, without that question in our minds, we will tend to do really bad things with particular passages of scripture in the pulpit.

So this, this is mega important.

Right. And you know, we can discuss that a little bit more tonight. I know that Sam didn't go real deep into that in the book. So we can, you know, we can add some, some thoughts and clarity onto that.

I feel like we've been recording so much lately. I felt like we just recorded something on redemptive historic, didn't we? I don't know. I could be wrong.

We've recorded some stuff lately on understanding scripture, where we talk about some of these things.

So, okay. Okay.

Yeah.

All right. So biblical theology, systematic theology, these two do play into our understanding and really are kind of the foundation of understanding those. One of the, one of the key points of this book, and I think that it's really helpful when you are interpreting scripture, is understanding the author's intentions and understanding the Bible's use of certain types of literature.

And so in this, the, in the chapters in page 20, when he talks about history and mystery, I think that that, that is one of the most important keys. And if you need to go back and read that chapter again, I would encourage you to, or that section, I'd encourage you to do so because what, what is really important there is understanding the progression of scripture.

So the Bible is this constant progression where things are being built. Over time, you aren't handed the whole in Genesis three, you are handed the foundation in Genesis three, and then everything is referenced and often referred to and somewhat built upon, but the whole is never, is never there.

So as history unfolds, it's unfolding mysteriously. And so when Paul references that the Old Testament is a mystery, but fully seen in the New, that becomes a really powerful point for one, understanding what is happening in the Old Testament.

And two, for understanding, which we'll get into this in our discussion with you guys, understanding how or what the role of the Holy Spirit's interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. So that would be kind of my initial thoughts on that.

Yeah.

So in thinking about history and mystery, it's, it may be a helpful formula to think that, you know, in, in the Old Testament, Christ is being revealed to us through farther steps progressively as revelation unfolds.

The mystery of Christ in one sense is becoming more and more clear as we work through the covenants God makes, for example, with Abraham and then Moses and then David, and by the time Jesus shows up on the scene, the, the progressive revelation that has already happened, the unfolding by farther steps of God's plan of redemption makes Christ obvious when He, when He shows up and when He comes to do the work that had been planned from before the foundation of the world for Him to do, and so there is mystery very much in the Old Testament, to use Paul's language, like you cited, John, from Ephesians, if we think maybe most pointedly, the, the mystery that was hidden for ages in God and has now been revealed to us.

So that's, that's what we're talking about. That, that mystery is revealed in an unfolding way, and then it is revealed most consummatively in the New Testament, you know, under the covenant of grace.

As Christ shows up on the scene, everything that had been mysterious and was becoming increasingly clear now becomes obvious and crystal clear. As Christ is here, He does His work. He dies. He is raised from the dead.

He then ascends to heaven. The spirit comes, the church is established, and things become obvious. This is what God's plan of redemption has been all along, but there was mystery before, and now it is revealed and clear to everyone.

Yeah, that's good.

All right.

Well, this is going to lead into our kind of last section. Go ahead.

Typology, Types and Antitypes, and the Fulfillment in Christ

Yeah, no, we're, we're headed to typology. I know.

Set it up.

Before we do that, before I set us up, I want to say, go ahead and start queuing in some questions. You can throw them into the Q &A and, or if you want to ask your question verbally, that would be even be better.

Just throw your hand up and we'll, we'll, we'll enable your audio, but we're going to talk for the next few minutes.

Or you'll just have to listen to us talk for an hour.

Oh, hey, I've got plenty to say.

Which you do all the time. I mean, I could talk all night, but.

Oh boy, that's right. We're always fighting for the microphone.

Yeah.

And then I'll give some instructions on, you know, if we're having a, if there's a question that's asked and you want to make a comment or have a follow-up question, raise your hand and just throw it in the comments there where the chat is and just say, Hey, I've got a follow-up question to, you know, whoever it is that asked their question and we'll do it from there.

So typology, uh, this is, um, I will, this is, is really important. And it, I will tell you right now, the more you understand typology, the more it will change your preaching. You are going to be able to preach gospel bombs from so many parts of the Bible where, you know, the majority of our Old Testament, I'm sorry, the majority of our Bible is Old Testament.

And the, the glory of Christ and the greater, um, I think explanation of who Jesus is comes through types and antitypes because the whole Testament is this further unfolding and the shadow getting closer to the substance.

So in this idea and go ahead.

No, I was just going to maybe define types and antitypes for people real quick.

Right.

I'm going to go.

Yeah.

So that's what we'll do. So in the book, Sam does, this is probably one of the, one of my favorite sections in his book. He does a superb job of explaining a type and an antitype, which I can remember the first time I heard antitype, I'm like, what in the world does that even mean?

Uh, I had to Google it and, uh, which was a lot of my experience in seminary. I thought, I thought exegesis was a bad word, you know, like people were anti-Jesus, ex, ex-Jesus. So, right. Hey, you know, I was 21 years old.

I didn't know. Uh, so type and antitype. So a type is, uh, you know, we'll, we'll get into this in, in more language with, with what Sam said, there's some quotes in here that I want to use, but a type is, the biggest distinction is understanding that a type is not the actual substance of the thing.

A shadow is such a great example here. So a shadow is not the exact substance as that, which is casting the shadow, right? It is often a very close and a very, uh, graphic depiction of even in dimensions, but it is not the exact same as, and once a type is always pointing you towards the antitype, uh, a great example that he uses in the book is, I love Mexican food and certain Mexican restaurants you go to, you know, it's all in Spanish.

And so to help out those who don't speak and read Spanish, they show pictures of the food and so you can say, oh yes, that, that, those, that looks like a burrito. I'll get that. And, uh, when they bring you the plate with the burrito on it, you don't need that menu anymore.

The, the menu, the picture of it is the type of the burrito. And once they bring you the burrito, the type goes away and now you actually have the substance. And so that is how it's being used is that in the old Testament, there are, there are many different, there are people, there are nations, there are things being

There are institutions.

Right.

Institutions.

Being used as positive and both negative, right? Positive and both negative types, uh, foreshadowing or telling us of what's about to come and most of those leading us to Christ. That would be my explanation, JP.

Yeah.

So just to maybe think a little bit more about types and anti-types and some important distinctions to make before we maybe open it up more broadly to questions and conversation. It's important that we understand that not, it's not just that anti-types are greater than types.

So the types, like John said, are people, institutions, et cetera, that we find that then point us to something greater, namely the anti-type where the type finds its fulfillment. But it is not just that the anti-type is greater.

The anti-type is altogether different. It's not the same thing in, in scripture. So for example, I mean, the, the, the illustration John gave is useful in that, like that photograph of a burrito was never the burrito.

It, it could not be the burrito, right? So it's, it's pointing us to something that not only is, although useful, the burrito is greater than the picture. Useful in its own, in its own context. So types are useful in their own context.

They mean something in their own context.

And they have a purpose.

Exactly. So God works through the nation of Israel in a temporal way. I mean, he makes promises that he keeps and he gives them land and kings come from Abraham and all these things. And we'll get into that more, maybe in future, future sessions.

So types matter. They have their own terms. They are meaningful in their own context, but then they point to something greater and different that is to come that is ultimate. And so types find their fulfillment and their end in their anti-types.

And so once the anti-type comes, once the, the ultimate greater different thing comes, there is no longer a need for the type. And so that's where that menu illustration with the photos on it is very useful in helping us to think through this because yeah, once, once you bring me my burrito, I don't need the menu with the picture on it anymore because the real thing has come.

And so that's what we would even, even articulate about the old Testament and the types and shadows that exist throughout it under the various covenants that are made there. And again, we're going to unpack this over four sessions, but that's how we would describe this is that ultimately once Jesus shows up in the new covenant, the covenant of grace is established and it is accomplished.

The ultimate has come and the anti-type is here and the stuff that came before it, while incredible and useful in its own way has now served its purpose. Once Jesus shows up on the scene. So I think these are, I think, I think it's good that Sam started the book with some of this stuff.

It's almost like prolegomena type material, right? It sets the table and it prepares you for what occurs in part two, three, and four of the book. And hopefully that's what this conversation tonight will do.

So it's a high level conversation, you know, that kind of governs everything underneath it.

And the thing that, what I think Sam does a really good job in that sometimes those who are from a dispensational background maybe miss what we're saying. We aren't saying that the original context is being changed or that it's different, the original context has its original function.

So for instance, when you go into a restaurant, the original intention of the menu is being used as it was originally designed to be used, right, to point us to something. So a great example of this is the blood of bulls and goats.

So on page 33, type B, he says there's types functions on two levels. Now the way, guys, I'm going to keep going here until you throw us up some questions. So somebody raise your hand, throw us a question.

He says typology functions

Well now you're going to start talking about the book of Hebrews and I'm going to have to talk about it.

I know, come on now. Typology functions on two levels. Types may be temporary and preparatory for anti-types, but it is necessary to appreciate their own meanings and purpose in their own context. So in this sense, the blood of bulls and goats actually accomplished what initially it was designed to do, which is to cover the dirty, the filthiness of the flesh.

The uncleanness.

Yeah, that's right. But it could not clean their conscience and it could not clean them before God as far as being eternally accepted. So the type was useful in its original functions, but the greater function that it was pointing to, which is Hebrews tells us, is Christ and which Christ isn't another animal, but he is the final, he is very different.

He is similar to, but very different than the type. So the anti-type is very different. So the function in its original has not changed, but there is a greater fulfillment seen in the anti-type where it is being applied as far as the blood of Christ.

Yeah.

I mean, it's a beautiful illustration and a beautiful example of this kind of typology in scripture. What was the sacrificial system about? What was it for? Well, in its immediate context, it was to make people ceremonially clean.

You know, when people broke God's law in certain ways, they were declared unclean and could not even be a part of the covenant community. And so then sacrifice was required. The blood of bulls and goats was required to make them clean for the purification of the flesh, as the writer to the Hebrews says in Hebrews chapter nine, but then the ultimate fulfillment, the anti-type of the sacrificial system comes.

So Jesus is the Passover lamb in that he fulfills the Passover. You know, his blood covers us just like the blood of the Passover lamb covered the Israelites, but then he fulfills the sacrificial system.

And we understand that there is no need for sacrifices to be made anymore because the once and for all sacrifice has been made through Christ. And it's a very, I think you guys can maybe sense this. It is for me, it's a very doxological reality.

I mean, it causes and evokes worship and praise and all of what God has done through Christ as we read scripture and understand it and preach it this way. It's pretty, it's pretty epic.

Yeah, very good.

Excellent.

Great. We have a couple of questions coming in from Luke, Jonathan, and Cody. Any of you guys want to hop on here and ask your question live audio, just raise your hand and, or just type in the comments here and we'll, we'll, we'll let you go answer that live.

Would be great to hear from you guys and start that discussion. If not, we can, we can read your question to the group. So any of those, any of those guys, I don't know if there's a lag here, but not hearing from anybody.

So we'll go ahead and grab Luke's first.

Sure.

All right. So Luke says, hold on a second here. Oh, we got someone raised there, Jonathan.

Okay.

Jonathan, we'll grab your question next here. Luke says, do you think that these like dispensationalism or pietism come from a lack of understanding of biblical theology? Yeah, I think pietism for sure.

I would say that when you don't understand the flow of scripture and the purpose of scripture, you then have to put it in there. This is where you get moralism and you get the applications from the Old Testament that are completely devoid of the immediate or greater context where we're trying to be like Daniel and David, when we're encouraging people to, to look at these characters and try and intimidate, or not intimidate, but impersonate their lives.

I would say yes, because that's not the original intention of what was being written, what was being written was designed to give you confidence in the truth that Christ is the Messiah and God is faithful to fulfill those promises to us, and I would say that there are, you know, dispensationalism, I think, doesn't have somewhat of a, I think, a fuller explanation of biblical theology, I don't know if that's fair, but.

Well, I mean, obviously we do not agree with how dispensationalists do biblical theology. We are contending for much more continuity in God's plan of redemption than they would certainly contend for, and there are many other differences that we could potentially unpack.

So dispensationalism, I mean, I want to say this charitably, but we would just say is an erroneous approach to biblical theology, to doing it, and there's a number of things that are produced by that error, and there's a lot of fallout from it, and I do agree, John, with your take on pietism that pietism comes from a number of things, but I think a lack of understanding of biblical theology, in particular, this kind of covenantal, redemptive, historical reality of Scripture is absolutely a contributing factor, and I don't want to, like, steal thunder from future sessions, but I'm sure we're going to have boatloads of stuff to talk about in upcoming sessions when it comes to, you know, the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, how all these things unfold, and the like.

And so if we have a covenantal understanding of Scripture, and by that I mean, like, the three large covenants that any covenant theologian understands exist, the covenant of redemption in eternity past made amongst the Godhead, where God determined to save a people, the covenant of works, secondly, that is made with Adam in the garden that's a conditional covenant based upon what humans do, and then finally, the covenant of grace that is revealed in Genesis 315 and then we would understand is accomplished and established in Christ in the new covenant, those three covenants, it's a critical piece of understanding the Christian life, right?

Because if we realize that in every way that Adam failed, like everything that God could ever require of humanity, so Adam failed in it, right, and plunged us into ruin and misery, but then in all of those ways that Adam failed, Jesus succeeded, and everything that we lost, Calvin says this, everything that we lost in Adam is ours in Christ, right?

And so that covenantal understanding helps us understand very clearly that there is nothing left to do, what else could be done, because Christ has done everything, and so then it frees us up to live in Christ, and it frees us up unto righteousness, not licentiousness, but we don't spend our lives chasing after our status before God, because we understand that Christ is seen to that, and I think that covenant theology is essential to understanding the sufficiency of Christ and his work, so that to me is a big connection with how a lack of a covenantal understanding would certainly contribute to pietism, or maybe I would even say, because pietism sort of is our default posture, not having a covenantal understanding of scripture would not combat our natural pietistic tendencies.

Right.

You know, I appreciate Luke's question, because Luke's getting at kind of why this video conference, this book study exists, is that we desire, we've seen the impact of covenant theology changing the way in which we pastor, the way in which we shepherd and counsel, and it does.

It gives you context for the Bible. It helps you understand its structure. It brings continuity. It helps you rely on the sufficiency of God, because he is sufficient to fulfill his promises, and really, I think it makes the whole Bible come alive with great continuity.

I would, I don't know if you, go ahead.

Yeah, just one other thought is that it does help you so much as a pastor and as a preacher, as you come to passages. Obviously, we're talking about passages in the Old Testament primarily here. It certainly, covenant theology keeps you from moralizing the Old Testament.

That's true, but it also orients you in a very helpful way to make sense of things that are said under certain covenantal or within certain covenantal contexts. So there are things that are written throughout the Old Testament that sound like, whoa, like how do you square that with the new covenant?

In part, the answer is, well, the new covenant has not yet come, and there are things that are being stated as the law of Moses still reigns and as, yes, the covenant's been made with David, but David's greater son has not come yet.

There are things like, even when I preach through Proverbs recently, like a covenantal framework helps us understand certain statements that are made about adulterers never losing their disgrace, for example.

It's helpful to think about, well, there is a covenant community of Israel, a national covenant with Israel reality that Solomon is speaking to, and then can help us to make some sense of verses like that and help us to see how what Christ would do subsequent to that era of revelation would shed some clarity on that text and how we might preach it and help our people understand it.

But then also a covenantal framework in our preaching and in our doctrine as pastors does really reinforce a distinction between law and gospel, and it helps us to understand what's going on with the law and its various uses and how the gospel will then be different than the law when it is revealed to us in full, and we could maybe riff on that later if there's time, but I don't need to say more about that right now.

All right. We're going to hear from Jonathan, and Jonathan, I'm going to go ahead and turn your audio on and allow you to ask your question. So, it's a great question, and just before he hops on and unmutes himself here, there are going to be a lot of questions that are going to come up over this series, and I will just, I will tell you that we're not here to really solve all of the historical debates that have been out there for years.

We're really here to kind of walk through, I think, the theology behind it. There will be some differences, and we'll see that. Sam does a pretty good job of kind of really presenting the 1689 position and allowing us to see that.

So, Jonathan, whenever you're ready, buddy, come on on in, and we'll hear from that question.

Hey, bud.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you great.

Welcome.

We can, loud and clear.

Awesome.

Yeah.

So, you mentioned about the restaurant example, the menu and the actual food. You made this comment that said that there is no substance at all between the picture and the menu and the food itself. Does that kind of show those, or does that kind of point the difference between the Presbyterians and the Formed Baptists when it comes to like the Old Testament and all that stuff?

Yeah.

Does that make sense? Is that like?

Yeah, no, that makes, it makes entire sense.

Well, would you ask, did I capture that correctly, or can you have further down that, can you explain more on that or something?

Sure.

Yeah.

I mean, so I think, you know, Jonathan and Cody, you've asked a similar question, it looks like too, as I'm even looking at some of the questions.

So maybe we'll answer both of those together.

You guys are pointing to, you know, there's a difference. There is a difference in how the 1689 confession and how guys like us who hold to that confession would understand typology versus an understanding that would be reflected, for example, in the Westminster confession or in the Westminster standards.

So first of all, I mean, we love our Presbyterian brothers and sisters. And as John said, I mean, this is not, the point of this is not to solve every historical debate between particular Baptists and Presbyterians, for example, but what you guys are pointing to is entirely right.

And there is, there is a difference in how we understand typology and how our Presbyterian brothers and sisters would understand typology. And so I think if you guys do want to read further on this, I think even beginning on page 36 in your book, you could look at that later, and especially on pages like 37, 38, 39.

I think Sam does a reasonable job of depicting some of these differences that do exist. But one of the things that, at least in my understanding of a Presbyterian perspective in the Westminster confession, is that a Presbyterian would understand that the types were essentially antitypes in their lesser forms.

So there would be some sharing of substance between the types and the antitypes, which in our understanding of typology, we would say, no, we think we understand that types and antitypes do not share substance, but that antitypes are altogether a different and greater reality.

So certainly a Presbyterian is going to agree with us in saying that the antitype is a greater reality than the type, but where we would differ is to say, no, we think not only is the antitype greater, the antitype is also a different substance.

And so this is where, like a Presbyterian may use the language of even the covenant of grace. It's one covenant under two administrations where we would not use that same language, even as it comes to the covenant of grace.

And we'll talk more about that in later sessions, in terms of our understanding of the covenant of grace being promised and revealed through farther steps throughout the Old Testament. But then ultimately the covenant of grace is the new covenant in Christ, if we're talking about established, fulfilled covenant of grace language.

So there is definitely a difference. John, jump in. I may add a few more comments, but I don't want to dominate the microphone.

No, no.

Yeah.

Page 37, third paragraph, he says, through typology, the old covenant portrayed salvation in Jesus Christ, but it did not offer salvation in and of itself. And what he goes on to demonstrate there is that the promise of salvation, everyone was saved by that.

Of course, we agree. Everyone is saved in the Old Testament by faith in the covenant of grace. And that covenant of grace is first promised to Abraham, and he's going to get into this, but it's first promised to Abraham and then further and built on in further explanation through Moses and then David, right?

And then when, yeah, right. So then when we get to Christ, Christ becoming the fulfillment of this type, he is the anti-type, and bringing, as Hebrew says, that the blood of bulls and goats could not save.

Christ's blood actually saves. And he not only saves those, of course, in the New Testament, he saves retroactively everyone who had faith in God's redemptive plan to save those whom he had elected to save.

And so I think that's his point there, is that the old covenant portrayed salvation in Jesus Christ, but it did not offer it because in the old covenant, you could not be saved. And I mean, which would be a distinction there too, is that we would assume Abraham, Moses, and David to be of the old covenant.

Correct. And we'll get into more of the particulars regarding Abraham down the line. That's not really the discussion for tonight, but I do think that some of the summary statements that are made on page 37 are helpful, like even where Rennihan will cite John Owen and say that even Owen affirmed that types were not anti-types in lesser forms, that they had a different nature than the types did, or even the distinction of being saved under the old covenant versus being saved by virtue of the old covenant.

And, you know, we would absolutely affirm the former, that people were saved under the old covenant because of the promise of the covenant of grace, right, and because Christ was coming, but they were not saved by virtue of the old covenant, namely a part of which is the Abrahamic covenant.

So we do not understand that the Abrahamic covenant proper saved people, but that the unconditional promise of the covenant of grace realized in Christ did save people. And so we'll get into more of the fine points of that later.

Is that answer your question, Jonathan?

Yes, that answered my question.

Awesome.

Yeah, man. Thanks for jumping on. Please jump on again.

Cody, I see your comment. You're very welcome for our answer and thank you for your charity, brother, and your kindness.

Cody, one of our Presbyterian brothers. Amen.

Yeah, we love our Presbyterian brothers and sisters. Yeah, John, do we want to take another question?

Fencing the Table, Communion, and Pietistic Misuse of the Lord's Supper

Yeah, we've got a question here from Charles. I don't know. He doesn't have his hand up, so I guess we'll just go ahead and read that question and then Charles, as we're talking, if you, oh, there he is.