So, a few, maybe a month or so ago, I don't really know the timeline, but we were Talking about justification here in Sunday School. And there was a discussion that arose. About a wording of our confession. If you have a confession, you can look with me. It's in paragraph 7, 8. In chapter 8. So, in the Confession, Chapter 8, the Confession, Capitulo 8, and we're going to look at Paragraph 6. Miramos el Paragrafo 6. And there was some confusion that arose. Había un poco de confusión que salió, and this sparked me on a little bit of a journey. Me empujó un poco de un viaje, theologically, teológicamente. And so I just want to make some clarifications that maybe will be helpful to us. Quiero hacer unas aclaraciones que tal vez nos ayudan. So, paragraph eight, paragraph ocho. I'm sorry, paragraph six, paragraph six. Chapter eight, paragraph six. Although the price of our redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages by those promises, types, and sacrifices In and by, it says, those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head, the lamb slain from the foundations of the world, being the same yesterday, today, and forever. Aún cuando el precio de la redención no fue realmente pagado por Cristo, hasta después de su incarnación, sin embargo, la virtud, eficacia y beneficios de la misma fueron Perdón, perdí mi lugar. Fueron comunicados a los escogidos en todas las épocas desde el principio del mundo en las promesas, tipos y sacrificios y por medio de los mismos en los cuales fue revelado señalando como la semiente que heriría la cabeza de la serpiente. The question that arose, our confession says it was communicated, to them, who are we talking about? Well, the Old Testament saints, los santos del Antiguo Testamento, the Old Testament men and women who believed in Christ, los del Antiguo Testamento que crearon en Cristo, that This covenant of grace, este pacto de gracia, was revealed to them, fue revelado a ellos, or our convention says communicated. Nuestra convención dice comunicado. And this is where the difficulty comes in. Este es donde viene la dificultad. The word communicated in this context, or in this time, la palabra comunicado en este tiempo, en este contexto, Means more than just told. Que decir mas que solamente dicho. It was given to them. Fue dado a ellos. There was something, we say in Spanish, entregado. In Spanish, it was delivered over. And so the difficulty is that it says it was communicated to them. The difficulty there is que fue comunicado a ellos in and by. En y por. Right? So what do they mean that it was communicated in and by? Que quiere decir que estaba comunicado en y por? Why it's a problem? Because... People who hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith, la gente que atesta a la confesión de Westminster, they believe that we have one covenant of grace, ellos creen que tenemos un solo pacto de gracia, and that it's administered in two different administrations. Y está administrado en dos administraciones diferentes. So they believe that the substance of the Old Covenant and the substance of the New Covenant are one and the same. So the difficulty is, the difficulty of that is, how can we say, como podemos decir, that the virtue, efficacy, and benefits, como podemos decir que la virtud, eficacia, y beneficios of the new covenant, de nuevo pacto, was communicated, given to them, era comunicado, dado a ellos, in and by types and shadows, en y por tipos y sombras, yeah. So No, it shouldn't be a period there should be a comma Yeah Yeah, it's The wordings this yeah, the wordings the same but the punctuation is not it should not be a period there It's a typo Yeah, yeah, so look at chapter Hold on Chapter 12? And does the first sentence say vouchsafed? Huh, that's strange. He has another version. Yeah, I think there's also a misprint on justification in that one. But it's a problem with the period there. Okay, so the problem is this. How can we say these things are communicated in and by if it's not the same in substance? ¿Cómo podemos decir que esas cosas son comunicados en y por si no son la misma en sustancia? So, if the Old Covenant is not the same in substance, si el Antiguo Pacto no es la misma en sustancia, how can we use this language? ¿Cómo podemos usar este lenguaje? No? Well, the first problem is this. El primer problema es eso. We have heard and we've even said, hemos oído y hemos dicho, we don't believe that the old covenant is an administration of the gospel. Hemos dicho que no creemos que el antiguo pacto es una administración de gracia, de administración de pacto de gracia, or evangelio. That's not entirely true. No es completamente verdadero. So, at best, the language of administration is problematic. En el mejor escenario, el idioma lenguaje de administración es problemático. If we're speaking about the two covenants being one, si estamos hablando de los pactos siendo uno, but if we're saying that types and shadows communicate the gospel. Then we would say the gospel is administered. But we have to be careful with the language because different people mean different things. So I want to show you where we differ. Quiero mostrarte donde estamos diferentes. So I'm going to read from chapter seven. Voy a leer de capítulo siete and paragraph one, y paragrafo uno. Chapter seven, paragraph one. Capítulo siete, paragrafo uno. The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to Him as their Creator, yet they could never have obtained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. Dice, la distancia entre Dios y la criatura es tan grande que aun cuando las criaturas racionales le deben obediencia a su creador, éstas nunca podrían haber logrado la recompensa de la vida a no ser por alguna condensación voluntaria de parte de Dios, So, In short, in corto, it's saying that we have sinned, está diciendo hemos pecado, and there is a distance between us and God, hay una distancia entre nosotros y Dios, and that distance cannot be reconciled, esa distancia no puede ser reconciliado, unless God does something, si Dios no hace algo. So if I ask you the question, si yo te pregunto la pregunta, what is the purpose of that covenant that God made according to this? De acuerdo con esta, cual es el propósito del pacto que Dios hizo? So let me state it again, déjame decirlo de nuevo. It says that the distance between us and God cannot be bridged. And says, and we could have never obtained the reward of life. unless God does something. Si Dios no hace algo, and it says, and he did do something, hizo algo, he made a covenant, hizo un pacto. So what is the purpose of that covenant? Entonces, cuál es el propósito de este pacto? To reconcile God and man, that man would have the reward of life. A reconciliar Dios y el hombre, para que el hombre tiene la recompensa de la vida. That's the purpose of the covenant. El propósito del pacto. Okay? So let me read you the Westminster Confession of the same paragraph. Déjame leer la Confesión de Westminster, el mismo paragrafo. The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath pleased to express by way of covenant. La distancia entre Dios y la criatura es tan grande que, aunque las criaturas racionales le deben obediencia, como a su creador, sin embargo, nunca tendrán desfruto alguno de Dios como bienaventuranza y galadón, a no ser por una condescensia voluntaria de parte de Dios la cual ha agrado expresar por medio del pacto. Did anybody note the difference there? Do you know what it was, Desiree? Did you know what it was? No? Okay, here it is. They say, ellos dicen, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward. Dice, Nunca tendran desfruto alguno de Dios como bienaventuranza y galaradon. So what is the London Baptist Confession saying? Que esta diciendo la confesion de Londres? The reward of life. La recompensa de la vida. What is the reward of life? Cual es la recompensa de vida? Eternal life. Vida eternal. But the Westminster Confession is saying this, for the Westminster Studies and Resta, you can have some kind of enjoyment of God and not be saved. You can be under a blessing of God and not have the reward of life. So I just make this point to make this clear. The reason that we differ in speaking of administration is because we have different ideas of the purpose of the covenant. We're saying Christ made a covenant in his blood to redeem. Estamos diciendo que Cristo hizo un pacto en su sangre para redimir. And they're saying, no, no, no, God is gracious to people everywhere, Christians and non-Christians. Ellos están diciendo Dios tiene gracia de gente en todos lados, de cristianos y no cristianos. So we have to ask the question, tenemos que hacer la pregunta. Why are they speaking like this? Why are they speaking like this? The first thing we need to know, the first thing we need to know, this paragraph in the Confession, this paragraph in the Confession, in the Westminster Confession, the Confession of Westminster, was a response to the Anabaptists. It was a response to the Anabaptists. And the Anabaptists were saying that Christ is nowhere in the Old Testament. Los Anabaptistas están diciendo que Cristo no está en el Antiguo Testamento. That there was a different form of salvation. Había diferente forma de salvación, but Christ wasn't there. Cristo no estaba ahí. So Westminster is responding to that. Westminster está respondiendo a esto. And they're saying, no, no, no. They were saved in the same way. Estaban salvados de la misma forma. Yes, Matthew. They would say the angel of the Lord. They would not believe that as a Christophany. They were more Socian. They come from the Socians. And so, they were arguing that there's no gospel in the Old Testament. Estaban argumentando que no había Evangelio en el Antiguo Testamento. So, when Westminster writes this, cuando Westminster escribe esto, they're trying to say, no, no, no, there is gospel. Están diciendo, no, no, no, hay Evangelio, but they swing the pendulum too far. given the pendulum demasiado, no? And they say it was all in its essence and substance, estaba todo en su esencia y sustancia, the gospel, evangelio, right? So we have to ask the question, what do we mean by administration? Tenemos que hacer la pregunta, ¿qué queremos decir por administración? If someone is saying, Si alguien está diciendo, that it is simply preached, simplemente predicado, that the gospel is preached in the Old Testament, even if it was predicado in the Antiguo Testamento, we would say, Amen. Diramos, Amen. Right? If they're saying, Si están diciendo, and this is where the heart of it is, es donde el problema es, If we speak of substance, si hablamos de substancia, how do you understand the word substance? ¿Cómo entiendes la palabra substancia? The meat, la carne, the essence of something, la esencia de algo, what it is, lo que es, right? So, what would we say is the essence of the old covenant? ¿Qué diríamos que es la esencia del antiguo pacto? Not Christ. No Cristo. We heard last week, escuchamos la semana pasada, right? That you can't put your faith in the sacrifice and be saved. Now, you need to know this. If we come to the covenant of grace, what can man do to be saved? Nothing. One thing promised in the old covenant is the land of Canaan. And did the first generation enter the land of Canaan? No. Why? They didn't do what was commanded to them. Did the second generation enter? Yeah, God gave them the land of Canaan. Dios los dio la tierra de Canaan. Why? Por qué? They did what they were required to do. So, if we look at this, and we say, could these people do what was commanded to them? Did they have the ability to obey in that covenant? Yes, si. I'll give you an example. Did they do what was commanded to them when they went to Ai? What happened? What did he do? From? from Jericho, right? They go to the little town of AI. And what happens? They lost. Why did they lose? They disobeyed. So what did God say to do? What did they do with Achan? Kill him, all his family, burn all his stuff. What happens the next day? They go and conquer AI. Van a conquista AI. So what do we learn? Que aprendemos? They received the reward for the covenant based on obedience. Ellos recibieron la recompensa del pacto por su obediencia. Right? And two things, dos cosas. God promised what he would do. Dios prometió lo que el iba a hacer. And when God fulfilled his promise, he then punished unfaithfulness. Cuando Dios cumplió su promesa, él castigó a ellos por infidelidad, right? And so we see that the nature of the covenants is different. Vemos que la naturaleza de los pactos es diferente. The substance, a sustancia. What is promised in the old covenant? ¿Cuál es prometida en antiguo pacto? Land, people, kingdom, blessing. No? Tierra, gente, pueblo, bendición. Right? And did they get that? ¿Tuvieron esto? Right? They got the land? ¿Tuvieron la tierra? They get a people? ¿Recibieron un pueblo? Yeah? They get a kingdom? ¿Un reino? And were they blessed? ¿Eran bendecidos? Yes. And all of it was removed. Y todo fue quitado. Right? because of their unfaithfulness, por su infidelidad. So I just want you to see, quiero que veas, the difference in the nature of the covenants, the differencia en naturaleza del pacto. We saw it last week, it's weak and useless. Semana pasada vimos que es inutil y debil, right? That's how it speaks of the old covenant. Como habla del antiguo pacto. However, sin embargo, What then do we do with the old covenant? Okay? There's a sense that it's a tutor. I think Paul's probably speaking more of the moral law than the covenant at Sinai there. But I'm not I'm not directly opposed to him referring to Sinai there either. Because he does. But the question is, what do we do with the Gospel in the Old Testament? The question is, what do we do with the Gospel of the Old Testament? Some phrases that the New Testament uses. It's a mystery. But that's problematic. Is the Gospel a mystery? In the Old Testament. So now we have to define what we mean by mystery. Does it mean unclear? In Acts chapter two, in Hechos capítulo dos, Peter's preaching, Pedro está predicando, and he's preaching on the resurrection of Christ. Está predicando la resurrección de Cristo. And he says, this is exactly what David said. Él dice, es exactamente lo que David dijo. And he uses a word, to see, usa una palabra para ver. And he uses the word pro-orao. He uses the palabra pro-orao. David saw it beforehand and wrote of it. David lo vio de antemano y lo escribió. But that word orao in the Greek doesn't mean to see it and behold it with your eyes. La palabra en griego no quiere decir contemplarlo con tus ojos, to see it, haberlo. It means to perceive it. Quiere decir entenderlo. The text says, the text would say, David understood the resurrection of Christ and wrote about it. The question we have to ask then is, how did he understand it? He saw it in types and shadows, but how did David understand it as opposed to, um, Ahab. ¿Cómo es que David lo entendió y Ahab no entendió? Faith? Faith? And where did his faith come from? ¿Dónde viene su fe? The Spirit of God. El Espíritu de Dios. The Spirit of God opened his eyes. El Espíritu de Dios abrió sus ojos. So, is it a mystery? ¿Es un misterio? Yes, it's a mystery in that it's hidden in the types and shadows. Es un misterio que está escondido en los tipos y sombras. But let me give you an equivalent in the New Testament. Déjame darte un equivalente en Nuevo Testamento. Paul says that the gospel is two things. Pablo dice que evangelio es dos cosas. A stumbling block to the Jews, uno obstáculo a los judios, and a scandal to the gentiles, y un escándalo a los gentiles. How are they ever going to hear? Como van a escuchar? The Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Santo, reveals that to them. So, if you think about it, piénsalo, in the types and shadows, en los tipos y sombras, there is something hidden. Hay algo escondido. So this is where we start making sense of things. Es donde empezamos a tener sentido. So the Westminster Confession of Faith was written, Confesión de Westminster fue escrito and published, publicado, en 1646, 1646, when they're working this out, cuando están tratando de resolver esta idea. They're basing a lot of what they're getting on what Calvin wrote. But you have these Congregationalists. It's really interesting. Tienes unos Congregationalistas, and you have one guy named John Toombs. Tienes un hombre llamado John Toombs, okay? And really the first one to express it, el primero para expresarlo, was a guy named John Cameron. Era un hombre llamado John Cameron. And he wrote his thesis. Él escribió su tesis. And his thesis was this. There's a covenant of works that Adam broke. And then there's a series of what he called subservient covenants. What do you think the word subservient means? Under, sub, right? Sub is then abajo. And what's the other word? ¿Cuál es la otra palabra? Serviente. Serviente. They serve under something. Ellos sirven abajo de algo, right? So, the Bible refers to in several places, la Biblia refiere en varios lugares. Ephesians 2, fecios dos, they were, Aliens to the covenants of promise, eran extranjeros a los pactos de promesa, right? How does it use the word covenants there? ¿Cómo usa la palabra pactos ahí? In the singular or plural? En singular or plural? Plural, plural. So what does it mean we were aliens to the covenants of promise? ¿Qué quiere decir que éramos extranjeros a los pactos de promesa? We were Gentiles. We weren't part of the nation. We were outside of the covenants that promised. What covenants is he talking about? I think he's actually speaking of three specific covenants. The Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the Davidic. Because, the reason I say that, everyone is included in the covenant with Noah. Because we're all part of creation. And that covenant is made with all of creation. The covenant is as long as the earth is. The pacto es mientras el tierra esta. So you have these three covenants that I think Ephesians refers to as the covenants of promise. Tienes esas tres pactos que yo creo que Efesios refiere los pactos de promesa. What do they promise? Que promete? Las cosas que mencionamos antes. Life, eternal life. Vida eternal, in Christ, in Cristo, one to come to atone for your sin. Uno venir para expiar tus pecados. So, they promise a coming Messiah. Ellos prometen un Mesías que venia. However, the covenant itself, sin embargo, a pacto mismo, is not what brings it. No es lo que lo trae. So Abraham is promised a people, Abraham está prometido un pueblo, and one to come from him that would expiate sin. Y uno que vendrá de él expiar pecados. So that's why Ephesians calls them covenants of promise. Professor Efesios dice pactos de promesa. So he's saying that he promises not only So that's where we're going. Through the physical, it promises the gospel. But the promise isn't in that covenant. So the terms of the covenant don't The substance of the terms of the covenant is not the gospel. But it is a means to bring about Christ. Does that make sense? Okay. So when Paul refers to them as covenants of promise. Ephesians 2. We have to ask, what is the promise? It's the mystery of the gospel. It's the mystery of Evangelio. If you look at Ephesians chapter three. If you start in verse 18 in chapter 2, you see in PSS verse 18, for through him we both have access in one spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens and the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself, being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure being joined together grows into a holy temple and a Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." Puedes leer este, brother, de 18 al 22? Dos, capítulo dos, 18 al 22. because in the midst of Christ, each one of us has our own prayer to the Father, in the same spirit. So we see here, vemos aqui, there's now two people in one. Ahora hay dos gente en uno. And the question is, how do we get there? Ephesians says, we were aliens of the covenants of promise. But now we are one people. Here comes along this Congregationalist, after the Westminster Confession was written. Después de que fue escrito la Westminster en 1646, 1646, and in 67, I think it was, creo que fue en 67, the Savoy Declaration was written. The Declaration of Savoy was written. John Owen helped write that. John Owen helped write that. John Cameron was an influence there. John Cameron was an influence there. Thomas Boston. Thomas Boston as well. And they changed the wording of the paragraph on the covenants. They change the language in the chapter on the covenant. and we copy the Savoy. Y nosotros copiamos el Savoy. So our confession is an exact replica of the Savoy. Nuestra confesión es una replica del Savoy on covenant theology, teología de pacto. Why? Porque they started speaking, ellos empezaron a hablar of subservient covenants, de pactos subservientes. And it's these covenants in the Old Testament, son pactos de antiguo testamento, that served a physical purpose for these people. Just like we saw last week in the sermon, if you sin under that covenant, You're not eternally cut off. You can offer a sacrifice and atone physically for your sin. You can be restored. You can participate. And there's laws upon laws on how to do that. So the question is, if we take something like the Passover. What did that do? Well, it caused their sons not to be killed. That's the effect of that. So primarily, sacrifice this and your son doesn't die. Right? When the Congregationalists began to preach this, they say there's another point to that. It also preaches Christ. For the one who has faith, as our confession says, which is a gift of God, he's going to see also in this sacrifice, the gospel, Evangelio. Right? So, primarily, it is a physical result. Primeramente es un resultado físico. Secondarily, it preaches the Gospel. Secundariamente, predica Evangelio. And we say, or the Bible says, the Bible dice, so it's a mystery, hidden. Es un misterio escondido. Where is it hidden? Donde está escondido? In the types and shadows. Y tipos y sombras. Right? And so, you have the Congregationalists come and start teaching on a subservient covenant. Tienes los congregacionalistas enseñando sobre un pacto subservientes, or covenants that are subservient, pactos que son subservientes. And as their influence grows, mientras su influencia crece, we have Nehemiah Cox, the great Baptist. Tenemos Nehemiah Cox, el gran bautista. And this is interesting. And we need to see that, we need to see this historically. He writes a discourse on this very thing. Defending that the old covenants are not the covenant of grace. Definiendo, los antiguos pactos no son un pacto de gracia, but they do preach the gospel. Pero predica el evangelio secondarily. Segundamente, right? So these Old Testament saints, by the Spirit, look through them. Que los santos de Antiguo Testamento, por el Espiritu, miran a través de esas cosas. And he writes this discourse on this very thing. Escribió un discurso sobre esta cosa, Nehemiah Cox, that many believe wrote our confession. Mucha gente creen que él es quien escribió nuestra confesión. Thomas Boston, a Congregationalist, Thomas Boston, un Congregacionalista, the Savoy Declaration, la Declaración de Savoy, produces a book, produce un libro. bonds of Christian freedom. Los ligadores de libertad cristiano. And he produces this book and publish it. Produces el libro y lo publique. But he also takes Nehemiah Cox's discourse on this. También toma el discurso de Nehemiah Cox, esta, and he produces it in that same book. At the end. So he said, this is such an important point of doctrine. That we need to print it. And he does that in that time. I just realized I'm out of time. What is the point? Right? What do we do with the Old Testament covenants? I think our confession does a beautiful job. They preach the gospel. So these men in the Old Testament were saved in the same way we were. Not by a different administration. They see the gospel in types and shadows. And the Spirit makes them alive. That's why Hebrews starts off, por eso Hebreos empieza. In many ways and at many times, God spoke to our fathers in different ways. En muchos formas, de diferentes tiempos, Dios habló con nuestros padres. He spoke to them through types and shadows. Habló por ellos en tipos y sombras. He showed them the gospel, lo muestra evangelia. But in these last days, it says, he has spoken to us through Christ. And so when we look at the Old Testament, we should see there's a physical promise and aspect in the covenant. The substance is not Christ. You can't offer up an animal and clear your conscience. God doesn't filter the blood of Christ through that. I'll show you a perfect example. Abraham. Did he receive the land promised to him? Él recibió la tierra prometida a él. No. Did he care? ¿Le importó? Let me play it out. My wife died. Déjame mostrarte. Mi esposo murió. Abraham's wife died. La esposa de Abraham murió. He offers to buy the land, to bury her. And the guy says, no, no, no, no, no, no. What is this land between you and I? What does Abraham do? He has two options. You know what, you're right, because God's already given me this land and it's mine. Or he says, no, no, I'm going to pay for it. He says, no, no, voy a pagartelo. He pays for it. Lo paga. And why is he content with not having the land? Por que esta contento de no tener tierra? What does Hebrews say? Que dice Hebreos? He's looking for the city of God. Esta mirando la ciudad de Dios. So, here's Abraham. There's a physical aspect. But his hope and his reality is past that. Why? Because he looks on with spiritual eyes. Now, did they actually receive the land? Yes. Si. Was it important that they receive the land? Yes. Si. Is that what we're waiting for? No. Was it what Moses was waiting for? No. Right? Because he looked past it. Right? So we need to understand. The substance of those covenants was not Christ. But they did preach. There's a double, a two-level typology. There is a typology of two levels. A physical and a spiritual. A physical and a spiritual. And to say, to say, like the Westminster Confession does, as it says in Westminster, if there is any grace offered, it's the grace of Christ. If there is grace offered, it's the grace of Christ. It's to redefine what we would say the grace of Christ is. It's to redefine what is the grace of Christ. We're not looking for a covenant that gives us some kind of earthly blessing. We're looking for the reward of life. And only in Christ is that possible. Anybody have any questions or comments? Even wrongly punctuated right they should have put the period there Ah, communicated. It literally means to give. So we have to be careful with the language of administration. If you read early particular Baptists, there's a man named Philip Carey. He wrote a defense against infant baptism. Bautismo Infantes, he wrote against Presbyterian theology and covenant theology. El escribió a contra de la posesión presbyteriano de Teología de Pacto. John Flavel responds to him. John Flavel responds to El, and then Philip Carey responds once more. And Philip Carey responds una vez más. But in his argument, en su argumento, he actually supports the idea of administration. El apoya la idea de administración. So, administration, if used rightly, is correct. Administración, si usado correctamente, es correcto. But it's not a helpful word. Pero no es una palabra que ayuda mucho because of the confusion of our day. Por la confusión de nuestro día. So, what does communicated mean? ¿Qué quiere decir comunicado? I believe the confession is saying, The saints in the Old Testament, when by the Holy Spirit, gave them faith, that in types, shadows, and promises, they believe the gospel. That was preached to them in that. So, they saw the gospel with spiritual eyes and looked forward to it. So when we say the mystery hidden for ages, they were privy to that mystery. Does that help? No, depending on how you define dispense, right? Preached, yes. But it was not in the types and shadows or the substance of the type and shadows. Yeah, it was not the substance of the type and shadows. Mm-hmm. No, no, no, no. Mm-hmm. Claro. Is there no problem? Yeah. So, some want to use the word progressive. I don't like the word either. I found that I like the word subservient best. Because what it's communicating is here's these covenants that God made with these people physically. And they are serving In a sense, the Covenant of Grace. So here's the Covenant of Grace. And though these have a substance of their own, They are serving to, in a sense, bring us to this one. So, God's going to fulfill His promises to these people in these covenants. And when He does that, Christ is coming and He's inaugurating the covenant of grace, which these things preached. So, I like the language of subservient. That they are subserving this covenant. Because we would say, the reason it's not progressive in that sense. Does it get clearer? Yes. But was it fully disclosed in the gospel to Adam? Yes. So we have to be careful with that word progressive. The Gospel. Evangelium. Okay, established. Okay, that's another question. So the pregunta es si el pacto de gracia estaba establecido con Adon y Eva. If they're saying that in the sacrifice of the animal, in that sacrifice God established the covenant of grace, I disagree. Si están diciendo que Dios en el sacrificio con este animal, con Adon, estableció el pacto de gracia, no. Because the blood of bulls and animals can't do that. If they're saying it was preached to Adam. In that covenant with Adam. Yes it was. But it wasn't inaugurated until Christ died and sealed it with his blood. Because that is the covenant ratification. That is the ratification of the pact. So it can't be any other. Does that make sense? There is no forgiveness of sins. A life, shedding of blood. The bread was actually, that's right, yeah. So if you think about it like that, I like how one guy puts it. There's credit and there's debit. The Old Testament saints lived on credit. Los santos del Antiguo Testamento vivieron de crédito. The credit of Christ, el crédito de Cristo, the righteousness of Christ that was applied to them, la justicia de Cristo que estaba aplicado a ellos, even though he hadn't died, aunque no había muerto. But it was sure, estaba seguro, so the credit of Christ reaches back, el crédito de Cristo se extiende We live in the debit of Christ. Nosotros vivimos en el debito de Cristo. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Clado. Clado. So it's just saying that when we have the promise of Christ there, it's very, very clear. All right? Amen. Amen. Oh, very important. Yes, very much so. Very good.