of the covenant promises in the coming of Jesus Christ. And the main point that I want to make is indicated by the main headings of the outline here. Christ is the Lord of the covenant. He is the Lord of the Psalms, and he is also the servant of the covenant. He comes as the servant of the Lord. So that What we are forced to recognize from the New Testament is that the Lord Jesus Christ, worshipped and adored in the New Testament, is the Lord of the Old Testament. And I noted here the kurios of the Psalms, the septuagint use of kurios to translate mainly to translate Yahweh, that designation of the Lord in the New Testament is taken in the sense in which the New Testament uses Lord, that is chiefly for Jesus Christ. And just one example that I would call your attention to before we look at this outline more closely is a very remarkable instance of this that I was bringing out to the First Peter class last semester. In the third chapter of First Peter, Peter writes in verse fourteen, even if you suffer for righteousness sake, blessed are you, and fear not their fear, neither be troubled, but sanctify in your heart Christ as Lord. Now there he's quoting from the eighth chapter of Isaiah, and in the eighth chapter of Isaiah, Isaiah tells us not to fear what the people fear. Verse 12 of Isaiah 8, say not a conspiracy concerning all were of this people say a conspiracy, neither fear you their fear nor be in dread." And you see, Peter quotes that. He says, Don't fear their fear, nor be troubled. He's quoting from Isaiah. And then Isaiah goes on to say in the thirteenth verse, The Lord of hosts, him shall you sanctify, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. don't fear what the nations fear, but fear the Lord. And Peter quotes that, but he makes an interesting change. In the Septuagint, it says, fear the Lord himself, and it uses altan, fear him. And Peter, when he quotes it, he says that too, fear him, And then he adds an explanation, the Christ. Fear the Lord, the Christ. So the Old Testament, fear the Lord, Peter, fear the Lord, the Christ. But it's not just fear, it's the word sanctify, set apart, sanctify the Lord. And we were talking about that yesterday, what it means to sanctify God. See, to sanctify God is to acknowledge His holiness, to acknowledge His Deity. You don't sanctify God by making Him holy, you sanctify God by praising Him that He is holy. And so, what does it mean then to sanctify the Lord? It means to recognize His Deity, right? That's exactly what it means. don't fear what men fear, but recognize the deity of the living God." And Peter takes that, and he says it, he quotes it, but then, so you'll know exactly what he's talking about, he adds, uh, the Christ. Sanctify the Lord, the Christ. So, that's a very explicit reference in the New Testament that shows how the New Testament authors understand and interpret the old. They freely and regularly think of Christ as the Lord of the Old Testament, the kurios, the one who reveals himself to us. Now this doesn't of course deny their recognition of the Father. They recognize the Father and address their prayers to the Father, but they also recognize the Son as being true God, as being the one who is the Lord. I don't think that 1 Peter verse has received anything like the amount of attention that it deserves. It's one of the most overwhelming passages in the New Testament showing the deity of Christ. And the more so in the fact that even the critics often tend to recognize the authenticity of 1 Peter. Well, if Peter wrote this, Peter, who had been in the fishing boat with Jesus, Peter, who had had him have Sunday lunch at his house, and all that, and yet he identifies him with the covenant Lord of the Old Testament. You know, it's just absolutely astonishing, and of course it can be only because of not only what Jesus had done in the sight of Peter, that he could still the storms with a word, he could bring all the fish of the lake to one spot if it was a word, he could say to Lazarus, come forth, and he came forth. Not only the power that Jesus showed, but the revelation that Peter had received from the Father. Flesh and blood is not revealed this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven. Only by the grace of God could Peter come to such a conclusion. So, Christ is the Lord of the Old Testament. So then, yes? What's your answer to the fact that the text of the Testament includes Christ? In that passage? Oh, that the reading is well attested. Yes. And again, it's much easier to understand how it would be dropped out than how it would be put in. But the manuscript evidence for it is good also. No, you don't get anywhere trying to separate out different names. It's a conceptual thing. not nominalistic. It's not that where you find Abinai, it's Jesus, and where you find Yahweh, it's the Father. It's nothing like that. It's just that because Jesus is seen to be God, because he is the Lord, therefore, references in the Old Testament to the Lord, from a New Testament perspective, are references to the Triune God. So they apply to Jesus as the Son of God as well as to the Father. I confess my transgressions to the Lord." Are we to, from David's perspective, is he thinking, or can we ask the question, is he thinking of God the Father there, or is he thinking of the Son to come, or is it just the fact that the Lord will provide that based on his sacrifice? Certainly in the, you know, in the mind and thought of the Old Testament saints, they're not thinking in a Trinitarian way. The amazing thing is that it's revealed that David, well as Christ himself argued, that David sees his son as Lord, you know, in a remarkable way. That's as far as David understood it, no doubt. David didn't have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity, but nevertheless, when one thinks of the Lord, the New Testament writers recognize that it's not exclusively the Father who's being thought of, but the Triune God. So if we're preaching like Psalm 32 did, we couldn't say that he foresaw Jesus as the Messiah, but that he recognized that God would provide forgiveness through Jesus. Yes, but my point is, the New Testament writers, because they do identify curious in the Septuagint with Jesus quite freely and fluidly, that we need to recognize that Christ the Son is revealing himself in the Old Testament. See, the mistake that's often made is to suppose that the God of the Old Testament is the Father. And that the Son doesn't put in an appearance until the incarnation. And that's not the New Testament perspective. The New Testament perspective is that the Son is from all eternity. And that when you say Lord, you're thinking of really the triune God. And therefore you can make it explicit with reference to the Father, or to the Son, or to the Spirit. And the way in which you make it explicit is often in terms of the appropriateness of the divine economy. That we learn from the language of the Bible that certain aspects of the work of salvation are customarily referred to the Father and others to the Son and others to the Spirit. Not, of course, with a rigid exclusivity, but with a generalized application. So you do think of the Father in certain situations, obviously. When you think of the account of Mount Moriah, God commanding Abraham and all that, you naturally think more readily of the Father. When you think of the theophany to Joshua, where the captain of the Lord's host comes with a drawn sword, you think more readily of the Son. But it's the triune God who's in view. And you see that in Hebrews, for example, in Hebrews 1, 10 to 12, there's a reference to Psalm 102, 25 and following. Now, there's nothing in Psalm 102, 25 and following that would make you think of that as a messianic passage. It's just a celebration of God's work as creator. But the author of Hebrews doesn't hesitate to pick that passage up and to quote it. Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, the heavens of the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou continuous. They shall all wax old as does a garment, and as a mantle shalt thou roll them up as a garment. And they shall be changed, but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. Oh, come on, here's a description of deity in the strongest terms, that as over against all of creation, as over against all of time and space, that it can all be rolled up, but God's years never fail. And yet the author of Hebrews, without batting an eye, applies that to Jesus. And does so in a string of quotations which include explicitly messianic passages. Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Now, you know, how can he do that? How would he not expect to be challenged at once? You know, here are people being tempted to go back to Old Testament ordinances, and he's showing how much, being tempted to go back and worship angels, for example, and he's showing how much greater Christ is than the angels. And he just, right, with no shifting of gears, he quotes not only Messianic passages, but passages about the eternity of God the Creator, and applies it to Christ. Well, how does he do that? Well, because Christ is the Curios of the Old Testament. He's accustomed to thinking of Christ as the Lord. And what's said about the Lord applies to Christ, because Christ is divine. Now, you know, quite apart from the theological truth of that, just the just the observation of what the author's doing is instructive, you know? It shows how Christ was thought of in the apostolic age. I know that you see the force of that because it's not only that he thinks that way, it's that he expects other people to think that way. Otherwise, he never would have used that passage if he knew right away they'd blow the whistle and say, of course, that's about the father, that's not about the son, and so on. But that problem doesn't even occur to him because he's so accustomed to thinking of Christ as the Lord in the psalms. Now, all right, this gives you a lot of problems in preaching. because it opens up too much richness for you to handle. Because you get Christ in the Psalms not just once, but twice most of the time. See? The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. Well, who is the Lord who's your shepherd? Well, of course, Christ. John 10 teaches that. Jesus claims that one. He says, I am the good shepherd. He's the true Shepherd. He's the Divine Shepherd. And He and His Father are one. How does He get to be the Shepherd when God's the Shepherd, the Father's the Shepherd? Well, because He and the Father are one. So, of course, He's the Shepherd. If the Father's the Shepherd, He's the Shepherd. So, He is the Shepherd. The Lord is our Shepherd. All right. But, He leads me through the valley of the shadow of death. I will fear no evil. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies, anointest my head with oil." Well, who is the Lord's anointed? Well, of course, Christ as the servant, right? So, when you look at Psalm 23, you can see Christ as the Lord of the psalm, the shepherd, but you can also see Christ as the servant of the psalm, the greater David. The psalm is written by David, and Jesus is David's greater son. And so it is Jesus who uses this psalm too, you see. It's Jesus who can not only say, I am the shepherd, but Jesus who can say in his incarnate nature, the Lord is my shepherd. It's Jesus who can say that he will be led through the valley of the shadow of death and yet fear no evil, that God is with him. It's Jesus who can say, Thou preparest the table before me in the presence of my enemies. And the Gospels sort of call attention to that when they talk about the dinner that's prepared for Jesus in Bethany when he's wanted in Jerusalem, ready to kill him in Jerusalem. But in the presence of his enemies, God prepares a table before him, and Mary anoints his feet. Thou preparest a table before me, thou anointest my head with oil. So Mary anoints him, and he is God's anointed. You see, now, all right, I said it gives you a lot of problems. You want to have unity in a sermon. You certainly don't want a formula where you say every good Christocentric sermon has two parts. One, Christ is the Lord. Two, Christ is the servant. But you do want to think that through when you look at a psalm, don't you? Psalm 24. Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Who shall stand in His holy place? He that has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. Who is the righteous one who can ascend into the hill of the Lord? Who comes up to worship in God's holy hill? Why, the righteous one. Well, who is the righteous one? Jesus Christ. So you want to answer that question. Who is it that will ascend into the hill of the Lord? The answer is Jesus. And we can ascend only because He ascends. But then you read some more and you find out another question. Who is the King of Glory? Who is it that comes triumphant after the battle? Lift up your heads, O ye gates, even lift them up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in. Who is this King of Glory? Well, you can answer that question too, can't you? Who is the King of Glory? Jesus is, of course. Where has he been that he's returning? Well, he's returning triumphant from the great deliverance, from the great battle of deliverance. Lift up your heads, O you gates. Lift up the eternal gates of heaven. The King of Glory is returning triumphant after he's overcome sin and death for us. So, see, in Psalm 24, it's very neat, you might say. The first half of the psalm presents Christ as the servant, the second half of the psalm presents Christ as the Lord, God himself, the victor. Now, well, Of course, just a point. When you go through the Old Testament, the great problem is the sin of Israel, right? And they have broken the covenant, and they deserve only the curse of the covenant. So how is the salvation of the covenant ever going to come? The answer always is, God's going to come. God will come. He will judge. He will deliver. The shepherds of Israel aren't taking care of the sheep. So, in Ezekiel, we're told that God himself will come and be the shepherd, in Ezekiel 33. And the warriors of Israel aren't overcoming the enemy and defending the people of God. And so, Isaiah 59, God says, I will put on my helmet of salvation, my breastplate of righteousness, I will come, I will deliver the people. Well, then in that connection, close in that connection, in the Ezekiel passage and also in Isaiah, you see, it's the Lord who comes, but it's also the servant who comes. In Ezekiel, it says explicitly that not only will God be the shepherd, but David will be prince among them. David will be the shepherd, see? So there's a kind of identification, the coming of God, the coming of the Messiah. And these two are more and more drawn together in the Old Testament. God comes, the Messiah comes. Drawn together so closely that Isaiah can write unto us, a child is born unto us, the son is given, the government shall be upon his shoulders, his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, El Gabor, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. So you see, God comes, the servant comes, but then the servant is more and more identified with the coming of God, as you look in the Old Testament. And then in the New Testament, that's what's asserted to be the case, that the servant who comes is God the Son. There's the praise of the Creator, declarative praise that we saw yesterday. That declarative praise is given to Jesus in Hebrews 1, 10 to 12. And so too, God is praised as the Redeemer. Psalm 23 that I've just been talking about in John 10. Psalm 68, the reproaches of them that reproach thee are fallen on me. Well, David is the Messiah, the anointed one of God, but he is the Redeemer who delivers us. Ephesians 4. You know, in the New Testament, this is so thoroughgoing that there are not only many explicit references to Old Testament passages, there are also implicit references in many places. For example, in Ephesians 1, where Paul writes in verse 20, the strength of God's might which he brought in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places. far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that's named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come, and put all things in subjection under his feet. Now where in the Psalms, what in the Psalms is Paul alluding to quite directly there, when he says, he sits in his right hand, puts all things in subjection under his feet? Well, Psalm 2, he's the son, but 110, that's right. Sit down on my right hand until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet, you see. So, psalm 110 is being directly alluded to. and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that fills all in all." Now, it's very interesting that in the latter part of that passage, Paul is using the vocabulary of Psalm 110 still. He's using it in quite a different way, to be sure, but he's just been directly using the language of the psalm, and he continues to use it more indirectly as he finishes out the passage, because Psalm 110 speaks about the exaltation of Christ. He rules in the midst of his enemies, in the day of his power, and he's talking about the power of Christ, and then he says, he will drink of the He will strike through the head in many countries. He will drink of the brook in the way. Therefore, will he lift up the head? So in the psalm, it's just an expression for being raised up to victory after apparent defeat. Somebody's head lifted up, you see. But Paul takes that language of the lifting up of the head, and he says it's really true of Christ. He's made head over all things. to the church, which is his body. And in the, in Psalm 110, verse 6, he will judge among the nations he will fill with bodies. He will fill with bodies, literally. Now, that's translated with dead bodies, but the word doesn't necessarily mean dead bodies in the psalm. In Psalm 110, it just means bodies. So, he will fill with bodies, and Paul takes that, he will fill with bodies, and he uses that language he will fill everything for the sake of his body, which is the fullness of him that fills all in all. So you have again, filling, body, head shift, lifting up, same vocabulary. You see how Paul thinks in these categories. Well, declarative praise, descriptive praise. The name of God is is praised in the Psalms, and the name of Jesus Christ is lifted up in praise to the Father. And our singing is singing in our hearts, making a melody to the Lord, who is the image of the invisible God. So there is not only the declarative praise of God in the Psalms, there's also the descriptive praise in terms of the name. But you see how the New Testament takes the concept of the name. The name which is to be praised, the name which is to be worshipped. The phrase for worship in the Old Testament is to lift up the name, to call upon the name. And in the New Testament, the name that is called upon in worship is the name of Jesus Christ. The Christian Church is described in terms of those who call upon the name of Jesus Christ. The... 1 Corinthians chapter 1. Verse 2, unto the church of God, which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place. In Genesis, when the line of Seth is established, then men began to call upon the name of the Lord. What are the Psalms doing? Calling upon the name of the Lord. What are the New Testament saints doing? Calling upon the name of the Lord. Only the name of the Lord can now be specified. It's the name of the Lord Jesus, the name that's above every name. Now, the only name that can be above every name is the name of God. So, it's divine honor that's given to the name, it's worship that is exercised in the name. So Christ, who is the image of the invisible God, is therefore to be worshipped and adored. You know, God is very jealous on this matter of images. God won't allow any images to be made by his people, and they're not to worship any image. And is it because no image is possible? Is it because it would be blasphemy for there to be an image? No, that's not it, because God made man in his image. Adam and Eve are made in the image of God. and in the likeness of God. So we are made in His image. And then, if we're made in His image, why can't we make images? Or, more explicitly, why can't we make human images? Since we know we're made in the image of God, why can't we duplicate other images made like us and worship them? Adam's son was in his own image, wasn't he? So can't we, if we can procreate images, why can't we create images? Why can't we make something in the image of God and worship it? God says no. The lid of the Ark of the Covenant was the throne of God. It was the mercy seat. It was where God was enthroned in light, in the midst of the darkness. The only light there was the light of the divine presence. So there's the presence of God between the church. It's not that there's no image which may be worshipped. It's that God's very jealous about being the one who provides and presents the image. which personally I think that's a good argument. It's certainly an argument against pictures of Christ in centers of worship because everything that Christ did was revelatory and every look on his face was revelatory and therefore if we fictionalize appearances of Jesus, it's like making up words that Jesus never said. So I don't think we're free to do that. I admit there's a difference between generalized pictures, Rembrandt's painting of Peter's denial is a good case in point in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, There, Rembrandt shows Jesus looking at Peter. Well, it's not any portrait of Jesus. Jesus is in the background of the picture, but it's just a pictorial statement of what happened. I find no problem with that. But when we set up pictures of Christ for worship, so that you look at that face and worship Allah Solomon, I have a lot of trouble with that. is that reference of the image when he criticizes the modern psychology technique of visualizing Jesus and Jesus' eyes and expressions and what Jesus is now saying to me in my painful situation. And on good grounds, in my judgment, yes. In fact, the Puritans worked hard on that, to keep people from doing that sort of thing. And now we have kind of reverse Puritanism, trying to build up what the Puritans wanted to avoid. Well, okay. Christ is the Lord of the Covenant. The declarative praise of the Psalms can be applied to Him. The descriptive praise of the Psalms, praising God for His attributes, that also can be applied to Jesus Christ because it's in Jesus Christ that the attributes of God are revealed to us. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Why ask, show us the Father? You've seen the Father. To see the righteousness of God, the justice of God, the love, the mercy of God. We see it in Jesus Christ. So when these attributes of God are celebrated in the Psalms, we don't want to avoid their manifestation in Jesus Christ. We want to be thinking about that. And then Christ is also the servant of the covenant. Yes? Before you go to the next category, in your example of Paul and Ephesians being apparently saturated with the language of Psalm 110, one of the objectives is meditation on the Psalms, and maybe I'm anticipating a full lecture, but have you given thought to what Paul may have done to get to that point, or, in your own experience, what you do. We're looking at it in a rather academic, content way, but then there's the reflection, How do you begin to think like that? What steps do you take to begin to think up the Old Testament? You touched on it when you said that the problem is created for each servant of the Lord. What about the solution? What about how you invent that way so that you can do it? Well, maybe there are two questions there. One, something that I think I probably left hanging. I presented a kind of problem that Christ is almost too much richness. Christ is present as servant. He's present as Lord. How do you organize that material? And you certainly can't preach both every time. I think it becomes more a matter of doing what one must always do in preaching, ask what is the thrust of the psalm? What is the focus of the psalm? But what is the thrust and focus of the psalm in terms of the New Testament fulfillment? If it's an attribute of God, how is that attribute revealed in Jesus Christ? And what is the thrust of the psalm itself? Does the psalm itself put more emphasis on the Lordship? So, I think exegetically there's work that can be done. It's also true, of course, that, you see, I don't believe that one can maintain that all preaching must be directly expository. that you only directly explain a text of scripture. If one were to suppose that, it becomes a bit awkward because every single sermon recorded in the book of Acts is topical, not textual. There are Old Testament passages referred to, but the theme of the message of Peter at Pentecost is not an exposition of Psalm 16, for example. It's a declaration of what Pentecost means. Now, of course, one could say, well, the apostles were free to preach topically, but we are not. But I don't think that can be maintained either, because we're dealing with people in their needs, in their situations, and explaining how the whole counsel of God applies to them. Now, it's dangerous to preach more topically because you want to keep it close to the Bible, and topical preaching can go sadly astray. But my point is that as you preach on, say, Psalm 23, Now you might think that normally you would preach on that psalm about Christ as the shepherd because of the New Testament application of it. But you might find in terms of the needs of your people that you wanted to show them that as they walk through the valley of the shadow of death, Christ has gone before them. And in that particular setting, you see, you might want to deal with an aspect of the text, rather than the whole message of the text. And I'm just saying that's legitimate. That text, Christ is the servant. Psalm 23 was a psalm he used in his human nature, in his incarnation. It was a psalm he sang, just as he sang the other psalms. So it's right, it's a fair exegesis to say, what did this psalm mean in the incarnate life of our Lord, as he would have used it. He's the true servant, he's the true David, etc. And I hope I haven't made this too long-winded and complicated, but what I'm defending is a proper right to take a valid aspect of a text and to make that the theme of the sermon. Now that's not a textual sermon. A textual sermon preserves the balance of the text. It doesn't take one aspect of it. It takes the whole picture. But it's all right to preach an aspect if the aspect is valid. And of course, you also ought to give some clue on what you're doing. If you preach Christ going through the darkness ahead of you, then you mustn't forget to say he's also the shepherd. But you're not preaching about that. You're preaching about Christ as a servant. Yes, if you want to show an overview of the whole richness of the psalm and do justice to it as a textual unit, you really should bring out both, in my opinion. Yes, it could be confusing. It's not easy. It could be done. But what I'm saying, the other approach is also legitimate. To preach Christ as Lord from Psalm 23, He is the Shepherd. And then you say, perhaps just almost as an aside, but you say, don't forget that He was the Lord of this psalm. is also the one who, like David in his human nature, could himself pray this song and does go through the valley of the shadow of death for us. See, you don't need to make that along, but I think it's always good to make it a statement, just so people realize that you're dealing with an aspect of the text and not everything that it says. Yes? Well, you've got my curiosity up here. Christ is a greater David than Saul. What do you do when you do come to David confessing his sin? Or do you deal with that later on? Yeah, we'll talk about that some. Of course, what we do there is to recognize that Jesus himself had no sin, but yet he was made sin for us. He bore the guilt of that sin, so that he cannot confess his own sin, but he does bear the burden of all that confession of David's sins and ours before the Father. You see, don't forget that Christ can be anticipated in a negative way as well as in a positive way. Saul, the first king of Israel, is an antitype of Christ in the negative way. He's the disobedient king in comparison to David, the man after God's own heart. David sinned too, but David's basic orientation was one of covenant faithfulness, while Saul's was one of of personal pride. And so don't forget that Christ can be anticipated, well, Samson. See, how does Samson anticipate Jesus Christ? Well, he does so because he's the savior of the people of God. He judged Israel. one of the saviors sent by God, raised up by God, to be a redeemer of Israel. And he did save Israel. He saved more in his death than in his life, interestingly. So even in his death, he was the savior of Israel. Well, what's the main point of Samson? The main point is, God can save by one. See, God's showing that it's He who saves. That's the whole point in the Judges. God's the Saviour and He raises up human instruments to show that He's the Saviour. And with Gideon, He shows He can save with 300. But with Samson, and of course 300 is a small number, he got rid of quite a few to have only 300 to save with, and then with Samson he shows that he can save, he doesn't take 300, he can save with one. And Samson is the solitary deliverer. So that the main point is clear, God can save with one. God can bring down all the temple of Dagon, you know, with the strength that he gives to one deliverer. But Samson's life which is one of disobedience, of sexual sin, of... Well, he's a playboy. He's full of wisecracks and one-liners and likes the girls and, you know, he's... He's not a faithful steward of what he's received. He's a very unfaithful steward, so he becomes a type almost in spite of himself. But, in fact, his deliverances are almost all in spite of himself. When he picks up the gates of Gaza and carries them up to the heights of Hebron, he wasn't in Gaza for any good purpose, you see, but the Philistines catch him there. And yet his deliverance, that no gate can hold them in, that he can take up the gates and put them up on the top of the mountain. It's so clear to show that God's saviour can't be kept in the gates of death, can't prevail against him. He can pick him up and put him in the height of heaven. You know, so God's showing you all the time his power to save, but it's always in spite of Samson rather than because of him. So Samson is a type of Christ, but shows often in a negative way because you're struck by the differences. Christ as the chaste and pure and holy deliverer is over against Samson the impure and so on. But still, many interesting analogies, you know, that Samson gives his life at last that he might function as a judge. Of course, not only that, even that is kind of mottled in Samson's Because even then he has a one-liner at the end. Let me be avenged for one of my two eyes, he said. Translators usually smooth that over, but that's what he said. Let me be avenged for one of my two eyes when I wipe out this whole assembly. Questioner 2 Can you see a sign of Christ in Samson without form? You almost a lot of work to try to find it. I have never thought of the type of crime in the way you did, and I don't know of any new testament scripture that points to that. How can you, without using almost an allegorical kind of method, say whether this is a type of crime? We had a little string of homicides everywhere, in churches, in homes. Mmm, mmm, right. That's the point, yes it does. No, no, seriously now, seriously, what's the message of Judges? What's Judges all about? Is it just a record of interesting ancient history? Is it a treasure house of the history of Israel? Is it an interesting account of the military exploits in the early days of Israel as the land was not yet properly settled? Of course not. What is Judges about? Read the book and what do you see? Again and again and again the same point being hammered on. The people are disobedient. God judges them. You know, it's all in the setting and the background of covenant judgment. It goes back to the covenant that God made with Israel in the desert. You be faithful to me and I'll give you blessing. You be unfaithful and I'll judge you. Well, they're unfaithful and they get judged. And then again and again, what do they do? They cry out to God for deliverance and He delivers them. And so who are the judges? They're saviors. They're deliverers of the people of God. What are they showing us? How God delivers. That's the point. The point is, God delivers, and the point is, God delivers in his own way, and that his ways are not the ways of man. It's not by how many, it's not by how mighty, it's by God's arrangement. And look at Samson, please. How about his birth? Here's an angel to come to promise his birth. Such a fuss made about Samson, see? Well, then why? Why, because God's raising him up to be a deliverer. And how does Samson work his deliverances? What's the point of all that? By the power of the Holy Spirit, you see. Not by pressing iron. But by being filled with the Spirit. I'm not saying he never pressed iron, but he probably did. But the narrative doesn't talk about that. It talks about the Spirit of God coming on him, right? And when the Spirit of God comes on him, nothing can hold him back. Well now, why does the Lord want to tell us about a deliverer who can deliver the people of God by the power of the Holy Spirit, and who has such strength and power that nothing can stand before him, that he doesn't need the armaments of men, he can go in the power of the Spirit. Give him anything, give him a jawbone of an ass, and he can clean up on a thousand of the enemy. It's a perfectly useless weapon, anybody would think, but not in the hands of Samson. Why? Because he's still with the Spirit, the power of the Spirit. So you see, Samson is not different in terms of the structure of redemptive history. Samson is not different from David going against Goliath. David says to Goliath, you come to me with all these armaments. Here's your spear like a weaver's beam and all that type of thing. And David classifies the armaments that Goliath has. And he says, you come to me with all this, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts. The God of the armies of Israel. And now the Lord of hosts, and that phrase there, Jehovah Sabaoth, refers to the heavenly host, you know, the host of the angels. So God, the Lord of the angels, is the God of the armies of Israel. So Goliath, you're dead. Because, not because I'm such an expert slingshot, you know, not because I'm a dead aim with a sling, but because I come in the name of the God of the armies of Israel. Don't you see, the theme is the same. Samson with a jawbone, David with a slingshot. What's the point of it? The point of it is, it is a human skill, human might, human wisdom. It's God's anointing, God's power, God's raising up deliverers. And when God raises up a deliverer, then they're going to be delivered, you know. Gideon, who's It's wonderful stuff, isn't it? I mean, these are not heroic types. Read the Gideon story. He's no General Schwarzkopf. I mean, this guy needs help. You know, he's just the youngest son and all that. Don't ask me to do anything around here. Just let me beat out my little wine press in secret. Let me alone, Lord, is his whole approach. And, you know, the Lord has to jack him up and give him a, you know, come near a tent and listen and hear the story about the pancake falling and all that. I mean, it takes all this to get him out there at all. And then when the Lord tells him to send all these people home, he just about passes out, you know. But what's he being shown? See, it isn't that he's a great guy, it's that God will use him. But there's always that negative side in there too, see, that God will give the deliverance even through types like this. But it puts a question in your mind all the time. How will God finally give the deliverance, huh? Will God ever come up with something better than Gideon? Will there ever come along somebody better than Samson? Will there ever be And of course, that's part of the narrative, isn't it? There is somebody better coming. Who is it? David. He's a lot better. He's a man after God's own heart. And all kinds of things happen with David that never happened in the period of the judges. David gets his kingdom consolidated, he defeats all the enemies, he raises all the funds to build the temple so that God's name can be in the midst of his people. David brings a wonderful transformation in the history of Israel. And so these other judges, in a way, are all kind of preparing for David. But then, you know, is David going to be the best? Is this God's showcase saviour now? Well, not really. Uriah the Hittite, Bathsheba, shame, and David, the last part of David's life under the cloud of his sin. So, then who's it going to be? Well, Solomon. David was a man of war, Solomon's a man of peace. And what does Solomon want? He wants the best thing a saviour or deliverer could want, wisdom. He doesn't want riches or power or whatever. He wants wisdom. He wants to know how to lead the people of God, and God gives it to him. And so, surely Solomon's going to be the great anointed one who will be the deliverer of the people of God. But then, what do you see Solomon doing? There he is, dedicating a shrine to Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, on the Mount of Olives, of all places, with his back to the temple that he built. So, God in His mercy doesn't divide the kingdom in Solomon's day, He doesn't do it for David's sake, not for Solomon's sake, but the kingdom remains intact through the rule of Solomon, but then that's over too. Now see, there are positive things always. David, the victor, doing better than all the judges, pointing to the fact that God's anointed is going to be a great victor. Solomon, the man of peace, pointing to the fact that the royal reign of the prince of peace is going to come. So both sides of Christ's work are anticipated in David and in Solomon. But see, always looking, always pointing forward, always saying it's coming. And then the prophets are very explicit about it, you know, there's going to come this prince, and sometimes it's just called David, but you know it's not David resurrected, you know it's going to be David's son. The line of the promise, the promise that God gave to David in 1 Samuel. So this is going to come. And then he comes. Please, what I'm trying to get you to see is, this isn't an origin type exegesis. This is not making foolish connections across the bottom of that diagram. This is going around the circuit. This is saying, what did it mean that there was a deliverer like Samson? Well, what it meant was, God can save by one. Anointing one with his spirit, he can be the deliverer. Well then, is there one through whom God ultimately saves at last? Yes, that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that you look for every fanciful little detail. That's like trimming. You know, I'm not insisting that you have to, I'm not coming at it by saying Samson picks up a gate. Ah, gate. What's a gate? Oh, New Testament, gates of hell. There you have it. Gates, gates, gates. See, that would be an allegorical approach. Now, I admit, I was pretty out on the edges when I got that bit about the gate, and that's probably what got you upset. And with some justification. I'm not going to try to push that one. But I want you to get the main thought. I think the Lord does put in little touches sometimes to remind us of things like the gates of Gaza. Yeah. If I could amplify what I believe your main point is, and you said a minute ago to the other gentleman's question, learn to think this way, look for these things in the Old Testament. So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that in every part of our reading, the broad picture anyway, we should expect to find, in fact, definitely expect to find some Manifestations of that fulfilled in the New Testament in Christ. And even going further, every psalm individually, we ought to also be able to see and find specific manifestations in the New Testament fulfilled in Christ. Is that correct? Yes, I think there are 150 messianic psalms in the book of Revelation. No, what I'm saying is they're all in the context of redemption, aren't they? And if Christ is the Lord and he's the servant and they're all covenantal psalms and they're all talking about the Lord and the servant, then Christ is probably there twice most of the time. So it isn't a question of finding them at all, it's a question of which aspect of the revelation ought to get the emphasis because of that particular psalm. My question, and I think several questions that came after it, are, I think, related to the problem. We've collectively been trying to think or to learn to think the way the Old Testament people thought. And what did it mean to them? Then we come over to the New Testimony, and we get our theology, and we're jumping from the event to truth, and we are not accustomed to thinking in terms of history. And so we end up with When I come to the twenty-third Psalm, I want to learn what a shepherd does. What do the shepherds do? And they say, how does the shepherd think? And I get all that, and then I jump over to the New Testament. I don't think we've been trained to think we've been, to think of redemptive history as a part of the exegesis. You know, even in higher criticism, there's some contribution that's been made these days in redaction criticism, for all the problems that there are with redaction criticism, at least redaction criticism. has is not well unfortunately it often assumes source criticism behind it which is too bad but redaction criticism is looking at the final product looking at the what we now have in our Bibles and it's saying what was the editor trying to say in this final putting together of materials Well, when they ask the question that way, they often get into material that's helpful to us. Because they're asking, what does the whole narrative mean? Not just what did some Yahwistic or Elohistic source, or what did the Deuteronomists mean, etc. But it's the thrust of the whole thing. What's it saying now? And that's just a way of saying, really, what I'm really after in pushing this, is that we think theologically. I mean, David does, doesn't he? To Goliath? He doesn't say, I'm not afraid of you, even though you're so big. He says, it's a theological issue. You come in the name of the false gods, I come in the name of the true gods. The whole Bible, not surprisingly, is theological. I look at that and think, is it possible to travel to space in a car with a sound? And one of those questions, a friend of mine, we were in a group, we were in a session long ago now, and part of the question was, let's take, for example, sound 2. That's a little bit different issue when you say Psalm 2, because it raises this question, does David...