 So, last week, Pastor Mark led us into the lesson with an introduction, and it is Union with Christ, and now that we've kind of broken the ice and had the introduction, now we're moving into the first of the series, which will be kind of like we did with the glory of Christ. We're going to start in the Old Testament and work our way towards the New Testament and then look at the theology of Union with Christ as a whole, and then from there, applying it in our lives. So it'll be an extensive series, and I hope that your understanding of this will grow. It is a very encompassing and deep subject. And the book that we are using as a primary reference for the study or the lessons is this book here. If anybody wants to look at getting it for themselves, it's Salvation Applied by the Spirit, Union with Christ by Robert A. Peterson. This morning, there is a handout, it's coming, and that'll be handed out to you, but I would like to, at least knowing you're about to hold it, explain some things in here. The introduction is Leviticus 2612, I will walk among you and be your guide, and you shall be my people. So that's a good introductory text to Union with Christ in the Old Testament because God says I will walk among you and be your guide. And then that very text gets picked up by Paul in 2nd Corinthians 6 when he's talking about how the people of God, the church is the temple of God. So you can see how Paul's using it to describe Union with Christ in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament is where he got it from, and it had its use there too. And the main question we want to look at over the next two weeks today and next Sunday is how does the Old Testament reveal Union with Christ? On this handout this morning I've got four bullets total, and I'm only hoping to go through the first two this morning. Next week will be the next two. Also there's nothing in the confession section, I did not put anything in there under our confession or in our catechism corner. You can read that, but I'll just read what I wrote. The 69 London Baptist and Westminster Confessions do address Union with Christ in multiple ways such as God's covenant, Christ's mediation, and the Ordo Salutus. However, I found no substantial treatment of the doctrine of Union with Christ in the Old Testament in these confessions. I believe this is because their focus is not on the covenants and history of the Old Testament and the Old Testament's foundational and prophetic relation to the New, therefore I have left this empty. However, please feel free to write in here what you find relevant and helpful from your own study. I could have put a lot of confession references in here that would be more appropriately referenced by later teachers on later lessons. And instead of just repeating the same confession, I made that comment because I think it helps saying when something doesn't address what we're teaching on, I couldn't find anything we didn't address what we're teaching on, even though I could have referenced what's future teachings coming, and that wouldn't have been bad either. But at least this gives you an idea, and it helped me, you know, like the confessions as helpful as they are, they don't cover everything. And then there's some scripture memorization, and I'll leave that to your own time. So with this first lesson, this is not in the book, even though I'm kind of using the I'm going to use that book as a guide for myself. But this first point of this first lesson, two points today, here's point one. It's the lesson introduction, covenant theology and typology. When you hear union with Christ, I think to whatever degree we studied that, we each have references that we can go to that inform our understanding of that phrase, union with Christ. And most of those references will come from the New Testament. Like Pastor Mark was saying Ephesians chapter one, how much there is there in verses three to 14 about being in him. Well, why does many texts in the Old Testament, why does that Old Testament text not come to our mind? Any thoughts on that? I'll leave that open-ended real quick. Pastor Michael. Well, when you started by saying point one, covenant theology and typology, because maybe that union language is not as explicitly stated in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament, but the pictures of union are. So I'm sure like you're probably going to get into, there's lots of union terminology in the Old Testament. But instead of expressly using union language like united to and in union with, you'll see things like the union of a husband with a bride and the union that God had with Israel and saving her, making her his wife, being faithful in communion with her. That is a picture. It's a type of that type of union. So instead of it being explicitly stated, it's more like picture form and maybe that doesn't come to our mind right at the outset of us thinking about union. Amen. Yeah. Thank you. Right on spot on this author here, Robert A. Peterson on his book on union with Christ actually titles the Old Testament as foundation to the old to union with Christ. So like the doctrine of union with Christ finds its foundation in the Old Testament and then brings out or tries to highlight the fact that the exact what Pastor Michael was saying is the Old Testament is not explicitly teaching union with Christ in the Old Testament. It's there in seed form, but you don't really get doctrine and good, clear teaching on it until you get to the New Testament. It's not that it's not there in the Old Testament. It's that it's not as explicit or clear and Paul is one of the most abundant writers on union with Christ and we know that this doctrine really gained an understanding after Christ ascended and sent the spirit and by giving gifts to men, namely apostles. They interpret the Old Testament in light of the work of Christ and the coming of the spirit and begin to explicitly teach union with Christ. Whereas in the Old Testament, it was there more in types and pictures. That's why he describes it as foundational. So that's why I've decided to go through a very quick introduction because I know as a church we've gone over Covenant theology from multiple angles under different studies, but it is good to remind us of the connection between the New Testament and the Old Testament. Because if we're going to go to the Old Testament to see a New Testament explicit doctrine, we need to know how they relate to one another so that we can know how to be careful in the way we do look in the Old Testament. So I'm also assuming some of you haven't even ever thought of some of this, even though I know most of you have and we've been taught, that's why I want to at least broach the topic and then move on. It's interesting we call our Bible the Old Testament and the New Testament, but not many of us know what is meant when that word Testament is used. It actually is an obsolete English definition, meaning Covenant. We could say the Bible is comprised of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and be referencing this book. So let's look at Matthew 26. Verse 28 is just to show you in your Bibles that this thing called New Covenant is biblical verse 28, for this is Jesus speaking when he institutes the Lord's Supper before his crucifixion. Verse 27, I'll go one earlier. He took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying, drink from it all of you, for this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, the New Covenant. So look at Hebrews 6, I'm sorry Hebrews 8 verse 6, but now he, that's Jesus, has obtained a more excellent ministry in as much as he is also mediator of a better Covenant which was established on better promises, and I'm going to keep reading. For if that first Covenant had been faultless then no place would have been sought for a second. So you can see here, there's two major Covenants in mind, a better Covenant and that first Covenant which was not faultless. And look at verse 13, in that he says a new Covenant, he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. So you can see a reference there to not only the new Covenant but in that text the first Covenant and it becoming obsolete even with the coming of the new. And now to show you some more references now of the old Covenant in the Bible, go to Genesis 17. I know that we could go to many places when talking about the old Covenant. Verse 17 or chapter 17 verse one, when Abram was 99 years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, I am Almighty God walk before me and be blameless and I will make my Covenant between me and you and will multiply you exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face and God talked with him saying as for me and behold my Covenant is with you and you shall be the father of many nations. And this is a formalizing of that Covenant. You could say it was ratified earlier in 15 with Abraham or Abram. But in 17 it gets really clear with its stipulations here. He says in verse four, ask for me. And in verse nine, and God said to Abraham, ask for you. And then in verse 15, then God said to Abraham, ask for Sarah, your wife. And he also gives some in here about look at verse 14 and the uncircumcised male child who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. That person shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my Covenant. This Covenant that God is making with Abraham can be broken, which is distinctly different from the new Covenant. In that chapter that we read in Hebrews, if you read in the middle there between verses six and 13, it was the whole point of the promise of the new Covenant is that it would be unbreakable. And look at it begins with Abraham, but it continues, develops it in Ephesians 2.12. These are called the Covenant's plural of promise. So the Old Covenant is comprised of multiple Covenants, one made with Abraham, one where it was given to Moses and to David. And this comprising of the Old Covenant is called the Covenants of Promise because within those Covenants, even though they were able to be broken, within those Covenants was the promise of the new Covenant, the Messiah to come. So let's look at Exodus 24. The reason why I said that last statement is somebody might be asking, why is he jumping from Abraham to Exodus with Moses and Israel? Well, that's because the Covenant God made with Israel is founded on the Covenant He made with Abraham and they're related chapter 24 verses 3 through 8. So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments and all the people answered with one voice and said, all the words which the Lord has said we will do. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord and he rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, 12 pillars according to the 12 tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel who offered burnt offerings and sacrifice peace offerings of oxen to the Lord. And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. Then he took the book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people and said, all the Lord has said we will do and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, this is the blood of the Covenant, which the Lord has made with you according to all these words. And if you'll think about the history of Israel at this point, they've already been delivered from Egypt redeemed and God has brought his own special people to him. And now he is stipulating the terms of this Covenant that he's making with them and they're restipulating back their commitment to keeping it. And this is often called the Mosaic Covenant because Moses was the mediator of that time. And let's look at Deuteronomy 4, 13. So he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone. I just want you to see here the relationship between covenant and commandments. The Ten Commandments were part of the covenant God made with Israel. So back in Exodus 20, that's God giving the terms of the covenant, stipulations of that covenant he made with Israel. And here it says he declared to you his covenant. And the Ten Commandments being the moral law and preeminent, they even get described in such a way here that it sounds like that's all that the Mosaic Covenant law is comprised of. It's not. It's comprised of all the law, all the positive law associated with that same covenant as well. And let's look at Galatians now. Let's go to the New Testament and see what it says about the Old Covenant. Galatians 4, 21. If you will remember Galatians, in Galatia there was an influence towards justification by works, which was Jewish in nature. Paul even says later, circumcision avails nothing. And he's saying early on, you know, who has bewitched you, believers? And did you begin by the Spirit? Now you're being perfected by the law. You know, why would you go back up underneath a workspace system? He didn't say that, but I'm trying to describe it in a way that you understand clearly with his point. And here he says he gives a contrast between the two covenants. In verse 21, tell me, you who desire to be under the law. And what he means there is not, do we desire to subject ourselves to the moral law of God as believers? Yes, that's not what Paul is talking about there. Remember, this thing is a rebuke and correction to believers who are being led astray. So their desire to be under the law has to do with the Old Covenant and law keeping as a condition for grace or condition for reward. Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? So you desire to be under that system, but let's go back and read what that system even said about itself. It was never intended to do what you're seeking to use it for. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond woman, the other by a free woman. But he who was of a bond woman was born according to the flesh. And he of a free woman through promise, which things are symbolic. And that's very interesting. You have Hagar, which she's like a symbol pointing forward or pointing to Mount Sinai and that covenant that God made with Israel and Moses. And it says here, the one from Mount Sinai, for these are the two covenants. The one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondons, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem, which now is and is now in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. And he's just pointing out the contrast between the way in which the seed came forth from Hagar, where Abraham took it, they took it in their own human strength to bring forth what God said he would bring forth and not trusting God with Sarah. But God promised it would be through Sarah and it was according to the promise. And that's Paul's point is those two things that happen in history, they were historical, but they also were symbolic pointing forward and teaching something about the two covenants. So I just want you to see these two covenants in scripture. They're not, these are not even like terms like Trinity where we see a theology in the Bible and we, we grow in our understanding of that theology by a thorough study of the scriptures. And we call that a new term like Trinity, which doesn't exist in the Bible. When we say new covenant and old covenant, that's not just terms sought to describe a network of theology, those are biblical, straight biblical terms. Okay. So with covenant theology, here's my point, union with Christ, how is union with Christ in the New Testament, in the New Covenant? How is it related to the New Covenant? Can anybody answer that briefly? It doesn't have to be like thorough going. That's where you're going with that, but union with Christ is the way that God communicates all the blessings of the New Covenant to us. Amen. Amen. Without the New Covenant, you don't have union with Christ. Without union with Christ, you don't have the New Covenant. They're inseparable. So that also helps explain why Old Testament's not so explicit on it, because the Old Covenant, Old Testament, Old Covenant, I'm using those words interchangeably for purpose, for on purpose, is focused on the Old Covenant, but also focused on the New Covenant. Because it's foretelling and laying a groundwork historically, prophetically, symbolically of the New to come. But it doesn't surprise me that in the Old Covenant, that's the Old Testament, knowing that union with Christ is inseparable from the New Covenant, that union with Christ doctrine is most explicitly taught in the New Testament, in the books of the Bible of the time of the New Covenant. However, there is a relationship between the Covenants, and that's where we get into typology. And here's why I asked that question. When I was thinking about it, I'm asking myself the question, how does the Old Testament reveal union with Christ? And some other ways to ask that is how does the Old Testament reveal the New Covenant? How does the Old Testament picture union with Christ? It pictures and typologically points to the New Covenant, but how does it do that with union with Christ? And the reason why I'm asking it that way is because I know that there's an inseparable relationship between union with Christ and the New Covenant. And I know that Old Testament, the Old Covenant points forward to the New Covenant, so therefore it also must point forward to union with Christ, because they're part and parcel of the same reality. And the more I understand the relationship between the two Covenants, the better I'm able to see from the Old Testament what is taught there or what foundational work is laid there for union with Christ in the New Covenant and the New Testament. So that was just to remind you of those two Covenants and also make a statement as to why we're looking at it, because they're related and that helps us study it. Now, typology. If you remember in Romans 5.14 Paul said that Adam was a type of Christ, Tupas. That word can get translated type, example, pattern. It means like when you strike or you make a pattern of something. So if I were to put my hand in clay, I would leave a pattern of my hand in that clay. The pattern there is not my hand, but it looks like my hand. It's because it's a type of this, the reality, the anti-type. So these wax figures that sculptors make, I don't even know how they do it, or will use like stonework, they have the anti-type either pictured or somehow modeled, and then they reflect the pattern of that anti-type in a type and some kind of a pattern. So when we put Alexander the Great in person next to his statue, you see the resemblance and you're like, wow, that looks just like him, but they're not the same. They're entirely different things, but yet related. So I'm just teaching you about types in general. Now typology, the study of types in the Bible is very important for your hermeneutics. It's very, very important. You will not understand why authors in the New Testament use the Old Testament the way that they do if you don't understand typology. And Greg Beall has a long definition, but I believe it's a good one. And then Robert Paul Martin has another one that's shorter, and both of those are good. So I'm going to read both of those and try to follow along. What is typology? It's the study of analogical correspondence. Analogical means analogy, analogical correspondence between things. And it's among revealed truths about persons, events, institutions, and other things within the historical framework of God's special revelation, which from a retrospective view are of a prophetic nature and are escalated in their meaning. It's a lot there. Typology is not symbolism. Symbol is symbols. Does the Bible have symbols? Yes, it has tons of symbols pointing forward to truths. But how are symbols different from types? Symbols are not constrained to the historical narrative. They're timeless in a sense. They're always symbols. A horn is always going to be a symbol of strength. But a serpent raised up on a standard gets its more than a symbol because it's related to redemptive history and it's bound by time, God working in time, to where he's pointing forward to his son. And then Jesus picks it up in John 3, just as Moses raised a serpent up in the wilderness, even so the son of man must be lifted up. Also symbols don't escalate. So anti-typology, the type is never the culmination or the fulfillment of the thing. It's never the reality. It's always pointing forward to the reality. And I suppose more could be said, symbols aren't prophetic and I know that kind of goes back to time, but symbols again aren't bound by time, so they're not necessarily prophetic. They're not prophesying of something coming, but types do that. Any questions? Linda? Could you give more examples of the differences like between a symbol and a type? Yeah, I'll just try to do that. I don't have a lot of symbol examples, but let's think about them. And if anybody has any symbols that they want to share, please do. Pastor Mark? That types are fulfilled. So like you said, symbols are forever symbols, one thing sort of related to another, but types are fulfilled by their anti-type. So there's a fulfillment that comes for that. Yeah, amen. Let's go to 2 Peter, I guess real quick. 2 Peter chapter 3, I don't know what am I thinking about, maybe 1 Peter, yeah, 1 Peter chapter 3. It's just Peter, and I know that the other translations outside of the NKJV don't use the word anti-type, but the NKJV does. I think the KJV does too, but the others don't. They just say corresponding to, and they're basically trying to put it in other words what that text is saying by expanding it because anti-type's unfamiliar. There's also an anti-type which now saves us baptism, not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand. And if you go back though, what Peter was just talking about before he said there's also an anti-type, baptism, that's the anti-type. He says, look at Noah, Christ in verse 18, for Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit by whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who formerly were disobedience, when once the divine lung suffering waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared in which a few, that is eight souls were saved through water. There's also an anti-type which now saves us baptism. So Peter's just bringing out this fulfillment of one of the types that Noah and the ark represented. Another one is for type is the Passover, and I don't have that reference either in my memory or written down. I'm looking it up right now, but if I'm going to assume, you know, the Old Testament Passover and in the New Testament, if you'll go to 1 Corinthians five, verse seven, therefore purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, since you are truly unleavened for indeed Christ, our Passover was sacrificed for us. So Paul being as good of a study of the Old Testament as maybe any other man besides Christ is saying that Passover with Israel where they shed the Passover lamb and spread its blood on the lentil in the doorpost and the angel of death passed over them as it saw that blood of that lamb that was sacrificed in symbol and type for them. In reality, Christ is our Passover. So why do we not spiritually and eternally die? Because the blood of Christ was put on our doorposts and our lentil. So Paul is just bringing that out, that there's this fulfillment like Pastor Mark said. The bread and the cup from Lord Supper, you know, the bread is to symbolize another reality, right, the bread is to symbolize the body broken, Jesus Christ's body broken, and the cup of the New Covenant or the cup that we partake of, the cup of blessing that we bless. In the Lord Supper, it's also a symbol, a sign of the blood of Christ that was shed for the remission of our sins. So that's another example of a symbol. Yeah. And one thing that can make it a little more challenging to distinguish between the two is that types are founded on symbols. So within prophecy, there's verbal prophecy where words are given that foretell what's going to come in the future. And then pictorial prophecy is typology. With the use of symbols, God foretells what's coming. So that's how it's different in prophecy. It's not verbal prophecy. It's symbolic prophecy. And symbols are not prophetic. And I'm sorry, I have to think about some more of those. I feel like if I just start reading to the Psalms, I'm going to run across a bunch of different symbols he uses. But symbols are just timeless truths, like we often use figure of speech to describe things today that we're not actually using the definition of the reality. When I say give me a hand, I'm not saying literally give me your hand. The hand is a symbol for help. That give me a hand is not prophetic. It's just a way to communicate so you know what I'm, a concept I'm saying. Give me help. So Robert Paul Martin's definition is a type is a divinely ordained prefiguration. Divinely meaning it's from God, he ordained it, and it prefigures. It's not incidental or accidental. That's something you need to purge out of your mind if you think that way. In the New Testament, when these authors are writing about how the Old Testament is fulfilled in what Christ has done, they're not like discovering accidental correspondence. They know that the Bible is a whole and a unit, and that the one true and living God has given it for a distinct purpose, and that it is entirely related and organic unity, and that what Guy was doing in the Old Testament did not just fulfill some events and history, but they were prefiguring things that would come. They're pointing forward to realities. You know, when John the Baptist looks at Christ and he says, behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. See, the lambs, the goats of the ceremonial system were all types of Christ. And because God arranged it that way, John understands from his own ceremonial system what Christ is coming to do or what Christ is fulfilling. That doesn't have much meaning if you don't have your Old Testament and you're not a Jew practicing the ceremonial system. And if you're going to translate the Bible for foreign speakers, are you going to translate lamb something else if they don't have any lambs around and don't understand what lambs are? No, you're going to say, this is a lamb, let me teach you what a lamb is because it's related to the Old Testament, all right. And he says, in which persons, events, institutions, or things in the Old Testament point forward to such in the New Testament. Now I want to look at the relationship between types and anti-types because what we're about to do is we're about to go look at a bunch of types and you're going to say, man, how is he getting that and saying that's pointing forward to that? Well, that's because I know that God has more of an intent here and with even though Old Testament saints probably cannot understand and I'm certain they couldn't, what we're able to looking backwards with New Testament revelation, it doesn't mean that it wasn't there or that God didn't prefigure it. Can not God speak prophetically through a prophet and that prophet? No, not no, exactly everything that God intends with that prophecy? Of course you can. He does it and yes, they do know some of it and sometimes they don't know all of it. And if they do know the essence of it, they don't know the scope of it or the depth of it or the details of it. So just because I'm not going to come to the Old Testament, I'm definitely not going to try to anachronistically interpret the Old Testament as if that's what should have been interpreted by them at that time. I'm not going to do that, but I'm not going to be afraid to say, I know that this was prefiguring what was coming in the new. Therefore, this pattern, like this statue where we had Alexander the Great was telling us something about the man. Another one is a shadow, Albert Martin gave this example. Here's another example, illustration of type, type anti-type. A son is waiting on his father to come home from work and he sees his father pulled into the driveway, but the car goes off to the side of the house. So he's sitting at the front window and he's waiting for his father to come around the side of the house to come into the front door. And before his father turns the corner, he sees his father's shadow. He knows that outline of that shadow is his father, but it's of his father, it's not actually his father. And he's grateful for the shadow because the shadow means his father's near or his father's there, but he knows the shadow itself is not his father. And when the reality gets there, he doesn't concern himself with the shadow anymore. I think more will become clear when we look at this relationship, but are there any questions at this point? Okay, well, let's look at the relationship and I'm trying, I know this has taken up a lot of time, but I feel like laying some of this groundwork will remove some obstacles for a number of people when we start interpreting the Old Testament for union with Christ. Because if you don't have a good hermeneutics yourself, you're kind of left with just picking up what people say. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it has an effect upon your own convictions. If you're not being a Berean and knowing it for yourself. Relationship between types and antitypes. And I got this from Samuel Renahan in a book called The Mystery of Christ. And I thought that he did a really good job with typology in there. There's some ditches with typology and I think that he navigates that well. So first of all, types reveal something greater and other than themselves. And I know I've already said that, but let me show you. So go to John 6. And please don't disdain the word type. The Bible uses the word type. Romans 514, Adam is a type. He was a type of him who was to come. John 632. Then Jesus said to them, most assuredly I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is, who is it Lord? Who is the bread? Who is the true bread? It is he. It's a person who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. Jesus is talking about himself. And what the Jews are thinking about, they say, what sign will you perform then that we may see it and believe you? What work will you do? Our fathers ate the manna in the desert. So the Jews are thinking, show us a sign if you want us to believe you. And of course he just showed them a sign that they were revealing their own adulterous hypocritical hearts. But they're thinking and they use the argument that there's this great sign in the Old Testament where God gave manna, bread, like coriander seed that tastes like honey, where they had to go collect it and make bread out of it. That manna that God sustained Israel with in the desert was reality. That happened. God did, they came out of their tents and there's all this bread on the ground or this manna and it's historical. However, it's also symbolizing prophetically as a picture of who Christ is and what he would do. And that's when Jesus, he knows that. He says here, I'm the true bread. That all that event there was pointing to me. You know how that came and see he doesn't want them to ascribe it to Moses because they're gonna miss the point. The type was supposed to be seen as coming from God so that you will see that I am from heaven. I'm from God to save you. You need to see that this is not some man-made thing in history, that's his point with them. And I am the true bread. And the point there is types reveal something greater and other than themselves. The bread that came down from heaven is not Jesus. It's not like parts of his body that would soon become incarnated. They're totally different in substance. This is bread that God's creating out of, I don't know. I don't know if he's taking creation and changing it or he's just creating it out of nothing. I don't know, but he's creating it. That bread is totally in substance different than the person of Jesus Christ. And yet that bread being coming from heaven, sustaining God's people in a desert, was pointing forward symbolically to the work of Jesus Christ. Types function on two levels. Let's go to, I think this one's important. Go to, we've got a little bedtime. Go to Leviticus four. This one's gonna, I think, strip some gears, so to speak. For 13 through 20, it's dealing with the sin offering. This was part of the ceremonial system for the children of Israel in the Mosaic Covenant. And this is particularly the sin offering. There's individuality in verse one. If a person sins and then in verse 13, there is corporate. Now, if the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally, and if you look there, verse 14, when the sin which they have committed becomes known, this is the congregation, the whole congregation of Israel, and bring it before the tabernacle of, I'm sorry, becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a young bull for the sin, and bring it before the tabernacle of meeting. What was the bull for? For sin. We understand the concept of shed blood for the forgiveness of sins, substitutionary atonement. We'll go on and look at, I think it's verse 20. And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering, and thus he shall do it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. What's forgiven? Anytime you use the word forgive, we're talking about sins on the basis of this bull, right? He forgave their unintentional sins at the whole congregation of Israel on the basis of this young bull being shed for them. You see that? It shall be forgiven them. Now go to Hebrews 10, I'm gonna read verse four, and then I'll go back up and read before that. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. I thought that it was forgave them. But he's saying it's not possible to forgive them. What's going on? That's because types function on two levels. The type is addressing a reality. So there was forgiveness of a kind. And it is not the forgiveness that the author of Hebrews is referencing. The forgiveness the author of Hebrews is referencing is talking about salvation, forgiveness of sins where we might have reconciliation with God eternally. The forgiveness there that they had was an external kind of a forgiveness related to that type in that system. So you could say there was forgiveness and there was not forgiveness. They function on two levels. That's important to know. That's very clear. I don't know how anybody else is gonna dispute what I'm saying from these two texts. And they're positive and negative. I'll just stop there. So a type can be positive. It can be like David. David was a type of Christ. And he was a man after God's own heart. And his faith illustrated in the Psalms is pointing forward to Christ. Many of the Psalms reference Christ. And they're also negative. Israel was a bad example as a type of the people of God. They're actually teaching us about the people of God by what the people of God will not be. But they're still a type. So types and then types always are unequipped and unable to describe fully the reality. They're always limited. Okay, we'll go into God's covenantal presence with his people next week and try to get through the last three points using some of this hermeneutics. Let's close. Father in heaven, we thank you for the understanding that you give us of your name, your will, your redemptive history and particularly your son and what you have done through him. Thank you for the Holy Spirit, Lord and the illumination that we are given to understand these things and rightly handle your word. Please keep us from error and help us to continue to handle it well. In Christ's name I pray, amen.