Now, where we turn to some key concepts at the end of the hour, but what we want to do is listen to Edmund Clowney, and you've read some of Clowney and you read a little bit more, but here's quickly what we've said we're going to do. You're preaching on narratives, and you know that when you're in narrative passages, now what you do is you're exaggerating truth from stated, but also exhibited truths. So when you're looking at a narrative, you're saying all right, what principles are there? Remember principalizing the text, rather than just chronicizing it? You're saying what principles are here? So out of those principles, they may be from something stated, but they may be also from something exhibited. And you're going to begin to see, as we kind of walk through Clowney's message, that a lot of what we've talked about in terms of illustrations being effective, are also what happened in narratives. We're going to have descriptions of time, place, people, situation, or plot development. So all of those things are communicating in some way. And we'll see how Clowney uses the aspects of the narrative to build what he is saying. We'll also see it occasionally in the dialogue, that the way that maybe one character speaks to another, or even the way the narrator speaks to the reader. So that's going to be more hidden in this passage you're going to look at, but we can still comment on it. But there are ways in which we've used illustrations to make points, that you're going to now see in biblical narratives, they are doing very similar things. And Clowney is great at retelling the story in contemporary terms so that we see the truth. So I'll point some of these things out as we go, and as we listen to Clowney. One other thing about Clowney, I'm not asking you to follow his method. We're still going to have main points and sub points from the text. We're still going to have explanation, illustration, application, or some version of that. Clowney, for much of his ministry, was the voice crying in the desert. He was kind of the first major theologian in reformed American circles to be talking about redemptive historical method. And I must tell you, he would have thought for much of his career that there's no one hurting. This just made no impact, whatever. Later in his life, particularly when he hooked with Tim Keller and John Sanderson, who was a student of Edmund Clowney came here, things began to multiply. But one of the reasons it struggled a bit was because while Clowney could exhibit redemptive historical method in amazingly wonderful ways, there really wasn't a homological method that was easy to follow. And you're going to discover that when we're listening to his message. So regardless of what method you follow, there's still got to be unity. There's still got to be some form of organization and argument. And so we're going to follow him in these broad strokes. But please, I'm not asking you to copy his method. Just listen for the principles as they come. We're going to go so we can do several things today. So let me get things started here. And I'll try to stop this frequently and make observations as we go. And I'd like to talk to you tonight about a very important word from the Old Testament. The word devotion, a word that is often used in the context of the love of God for his people in the Old Testament. It's a word that's translated loving kindness. It's the Hebrew word, cast back. Now, of course, academic occasions you have a permission to use Hebrew word. Make that clear to students. No other occasions only. But on an academic occasion like this, we can bring in a Hebrew word. And the word has said, and it's good I did get used to it because there really isn't any English word that's an exactly equivalent. Loving kindness doesn't quite do it. I want you to think about that word, and maybe we'll get a little better understanding of it as we reflect together tonight on the scriptures. Okay. That was an introduction. What's this message going to be about? So it's going to be about Hesed, the English being. So we've got different things, loving kindness. I think the word used the most was devotion, but he's kind of said, this is what I'm going to be talking about. Okay, so we get the theme announced as it were, the unifying concept of the message as it begins to unfold. It might help you to take action. And do I understand the word a little better? I'd like to read a passage from the word of God, a passage in which the word does not occur. Nevertheless, it's a passage that will help us to understand the word. Now, it's found in the 23rd chapter of 2 Samuel, beginning with verse 13, 2 Samuel, chapter 23, verse 13. And 3 of the 30 chief men went down and came to David in the harvest time unto the cave of Adolo. And the troop of the Philistines was in camped in the valley of Raphael. And David was then in the stronghold, and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem. And David longed and said, all that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate. And the three mighty men broke through the host of the Philistines and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem that was by the gate and took it and brought it to David. But he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? Therefore he would not drink it. These things did, the three mighty men. I think it's clear to you that here is a passage which describes for us the devotion that David's men had for him. A passage that also shows us the devotion that David had for the Lord. So if we have the organizational plan, now it's distant from you, so you may have trouble remember. He said, this passage is about two things. First, it's about the devotion of David's men to David. So he said, first of all, it's about the devotion of men to men. He said, the other thing it's about is the devotion of, do you remember what the other one was? Of David, of man to God. Now, even though it went by quickly, that really is his organizational scheme for what's going to happen. So we're going to follow that organizational scheme as we go. For in this passage there is a gift of devotion that is brought to the king. A gift of devotion, which the king offers in his devotion to the Lord. And I want to think with you about this matter of devotion. For you see, the term transcend, it means to begin with something like loyalty. It's the kind of term that could describe tribal loyalty. Okay, whenever you start something you say, the meaning of the term is, what form of argument are you doing? The meaning is, what are you doing now with your terms? You're simply defining. So to define what Hesse is, we now have an argument that's running by the form of definition. Now, I'll give you the scheme and then you'll start to see how it unfolds. He's going to do two things. Aaron? No, this is just in that big space, just to kind of help you get a sense of the message. So there will only be about 20 test questions on this material. I'm teasing. Now, I just want you to have a scheme of what's, here's what we're doing today. Okay, we're listening to this message. We're going to hear Clowney preach a very traditional message. And then he's going to tell us why it's not redemptive. And then he's going to move back across it. Okay, so it's a great message to kind of hear what would redemptive versus non-redemptive messages be like. So the first we're just kind of getting a scheme in front of us here. And so he's giving us his argument. Here's what he's going to do. He's going to retell this story. And he's going to say, here's what Hesse was like back then. And here's what would be like in contemporary terms. And he's going to give positive and negative and positive and negative. So he's not just going to say then and now, he's going to say negative examples and positive examples and negative examples and positive examples today. Okay, so that's kind of, he's just going to give a long explanation, which is definition by retelling the story. And the definition is what is Hesse? What is what is biblical devotion? And he already gave you one example. He said, Hesse is kind of like what kind of loyalty? Tribal. So you'd say, well, okay, that's kind of a remove from us cultural understanding. Tribal loyalty. So he's got to bring that closer and watch how he does. He's really a master at this. It's a sort of thing that we encounter in our civilization, mostly in the sports world. Here you have a team known as the Cardinals, I understand. Now in Philadelphia, we have the team known as the Phillies. And obviously, the Phillies will become the champions. They will earn it by seniority. The, call them the police kids, you know. The Philadelphia Phillies demand of their fans lily. In fact, it's not enough to be mildly loyal. You're supposed to be a fanatic. And you see this in the sports world. Now, we do a bit of it in the United States. In England, it's even worse. They tear down and stand at soccer matches in Liverpool. There has to be this intense loyalty for a team. And we have some understanding of it there in a strange kind of caricature in modern life. Although of course, I think perhaps it can be said that there's a little more patriotism around these days than was once the case. So maybe there's a little loyalty to our country, a little loyalty to America. And certainly around the world, nationalism often expresses the great loyalty of man. That for which they are willing to live and to die. And you see, there is a loyalty which can be carried to the pitch of devotion. And that's what you find in these men that were with David. Now we're not sure just what period this was in the life of David. Perhaps it was in the time after the death of Saul. Okay, so all he's done for right now is he's just said, all right, in loyalty might be something that's tribal. And he says, well, compare to sports, compare to patriotism, positive and negative sides of that. But actually, we're talking about David's men. So now we're going to say, what does devotion look like among David's men? Now, to make us understand that, he's going to do a lot of the same patterns. He's going to begin to tell us the narrative. What is the time of this? The time David's where he's out in the desert, Saul's troops are after him. So he begins to describe time and place and people and situations. Now listen to it for a while. It's all going to be back there somewhere. And then watch how he comes into our reality. How would that be understood in today's terms? During the period before David had begun his wars against the Philistines. At any event, David is out in the wilderness in his old haunts where he had been when he was hiding from King Saul. And he's beginning to rally men to him there in the desert. He's at a strong point in the desert. And then are coming to volunteer for his cause. And among them, there are these three men. Now, the passage that I read is not given to us in Scripture at the time that it happened. It's given where we have a kind of recap of David's mighty men. We're given the accounts of the knights of David's round table if you please. Those who had done great exploits in the service of David. And we're told that these men came today. It is volunteers out in the desert. And when they came, these three men, they heard David say in one hot afternoon, all that somebody would get me a drink of water from the well in Bethlehem. Now David is only expressing a wish here, obviously, and even the form of the language, it makes that clear. But the three men hear him. And they are loyal. They have pesse with respect to the lards anointed, with respect to the king David. And so they hear him say, I'd like a drink of water from the well in Bethlehem. And one of them says to the other, you heard what the chief said? Yes, I heard it. Once water he does, from the well of Bethlehem. The other fellow says, let's get it. Put it on his sword. I get a clay pot. I go to get the water. Now, of course, the problem is that the well of Bethlehem is in a town that's now occupied by the Philistines. And David, when he said he wishes he had water from the well of Bethlehem, is wishing for something that seems completely unattainable. It's a garrison city of the Philistines. He can't get water from Bethlehem. Now, I don't know what David was thinking about when he wanted to have that water. I don't know if it was a little bit nostalgia. Bethlehem was his hometown, you know. He knew the well and he'd often had a drink there. Now, all he's doing is talking about David wanting a drink of water from Bethlehem, right? That's all David's experience, right? He's already done something to make us understand the situation a little bit more. He said, David's mighty men are kind of like the accounts of the nights of the round. So we get something tying to our experience a little bit more. But now, listen how he's going to push everything. Taste, smell, feeling, sentiment, everything that kind of make us understand what this ancient account is about. Maybe you like the water. Some of you are nostalgic about a spring from the land of your youth. Of course, since I was raised in Philadelphia, I get nostalgia only when I go into swimming pools because only there do you get the chlorine density that fills Philadelphia water. But nevertheless, there are some people that are very nostalgic and maybe they had great water in that well in Bethlehem. And David really wanted to taste them. But you know, I don't think it was just nostalgia if it was that. I think it's an expression of David's love. He is the Lord's tonight. He knows that God has made him to be king over all the land. And here he is, God's king. But he can't even control his own hometown. He can't even go to the well of his own hometown and get a drink of water. And so on that hot afternoon, of course it didn't mean they didn't have any water there. They couldn't have a strong point without some source of water. But on that hot afternoon, when David's thirsty, he's saying in his heart, oh Lord, Lord when will I prevail? When will your promises be sealed to me? When will I be able to go again to Bethlehem and drink the water from that familiar well by the gate of Bethlehem? But now you see, these three men are on their errand. They're heading out across the desert. And they have to go to Bethlehem. I don't know how the Fliston Army was organized. I don't know where they had the first line of defense or where there were people on guard or on watch duty. But we know that they had to break through the host of the Fliston. So at some point, their approach was noted. And at some point, they had to begin fighting. And by battle, they had to make their way. And perhaps they'd go through one line, I don't know. They weren't running up the road that led to Bethlehem. Of course, they had to go right to the gate of Bethlehem. And the gate was always the command post of an ancient city. So that's where the generals would be. That's where the captains of the host would do assembled near the well in Bethlehem. It's roughly analogous, you know, to saying, go get me a drink of water from the cooler in the permanent. I mean, it isn't way out on the periphery somewhere. This is all the way in, if you follow me. So here they had to go and fight their way in and get to the well of Bethlehem. I don't know whether they pulled up the water or some woman drew the water for them while they fought off the Fliston. But they got the water. And then with the water in their possession, they had to get out again. I suspect they had to fight their way out as well as fight their way in. And at last, they're clear of the Fliston and they're going back across the desert. And you know, maybe that was the hardest part of all. The last mile is carrying that water and not drinking it after all that fighting. But they had the water and they brought it back and they came today. Chief, you said you'd like a little water from the well in Bethlehem, you know. Well, there it is. We got it for you. We got it for you. Here it is. And then David did something that distresses some of the commentators. David took the water and he poured it out on the ground. All of it. There was a little wet space in the fans, you know. Then the sun came out and there was a little dry space. Now that is so simple, but it is so effective. I mean, can't you just see it in your mind's eye? A little wet spot in the desert sun. There's a little dry spot. And all he's got is David poured out the water. But he wants you to feel what that was like, what that was about. What are other things he's done to kind of engage your present understanding with this old Testament account? What's some other things that he's done to kind of bring it in close? Yes, Josh? He does a lot of rephrasing, right? In his retelling, he also rephrases kind of outside the biblical language, but so that you can understand it. What else does he do? Yes. He fills in the action. Do you get fighting in, fighting out? He really is a master. So I listen to him at times and kind of say, well, the Bible doesn't say that. But if he does, he'll always say something like, I imagine. Or I don't know, but. And he fills in necessary details. In other words, for the account to have happened, it would have had something like that would have had to happen. You know, I think if he just kind of totally filled in, you know, and they met a woman there and she said, you kind of know, it doesn't say that. But it's, I think it's creative storytelling within limits. It kind of gets near the boundaries at certain points, but probably within limits. What are other things he does to engage you? Remember when he's retelling the story, what are things he does to say in your time? This is what it would mean. Tom? Yeah. It's just really good reference. By the way, this would have been I think 1982 graduation ceremony here at Covenant Seminary. So I guess the fillies and the cards were in some kind of race at the time too. So I think those are the chief ones. Anything else? Oh, the dialogue. You know, chief wants some water he does. Well, let's get him some. You know, I mean, those words aren't in scripture, but they had to say something to one another that kind of reflected that. So he retells it in a way that engages us. Now remember, all we're doing right now is we're just saying, what's devotion look like? What's a definition of devotion? And how do we see it exemplified, exhibited in this passage? So that's all we've done so far. Those men at the risk of their lives had got David that water he wanted to drink so much. And yet when they brought it to him, he wouldn't drink it. What a thoughtless state it was. Well, you know better than that. It wasn't thoughtlessness at all. David did exactly the right thing. Why? Why because David said, man, I don't deserve this. I don't deserve this. This isn't just water. This is, as it were, your blood. You put your lives on the line to get this water for me. And I can't take it from you and drink it just like that. David said, there's only one thing that I can do with this water. I can only give it to God. It's too holy for any other use. What? What a wonderful patch, David had. What a wonderful understanding. What a wonderful leader among men he was. What a wonderful king of gods coming. Or you see what he did. He saw that this wasn't his right. He saw that this wasn't something he could take for granted, and the loyalty that these men had shown. But he saw that this was God's work in their hearts and in their lives. And therefore he wanted to give it back to God from whom it had come. It's a wonderful lesson in leadership. Isn't David a great guy? Isn't David a wonderful leader example? I mean, don't you just wish that you could only be like David. But he's very careful. You are being led down the Primrose path. And he knows exactly what he's doing. But with he does it, he begins to give us some application. And he says, here's what such devotion would look like in leadership. Right? So he's going to begin to apply it to various forms of leadership. Now, so far I'm thinking everybody's kind of nodding their heads. You see devotion, that's what you should be, that's what David was. And therefore we should be leaders just like this. And now he's going to define the various places. Apply the various places in which such leadership would be. Now, think of the strength of this. It's instructional. We've got principal. Devotion is sacrificial leadership. We've got a principal to work off with. Now we're going to get situational specificity too. He's going to tell us where you would apply this principle. So in terms of the four questions of application, he's doing really great on the first two. Listen to how to unfold. What to do and where to do it? It's going to be real clear. You young men are preparing to be ministers of the gospel. And all of you, whether that's your purpose or some other form of leadership in the Church of Jesus Christ, others will honor you for the work in which you are engaged. And particularly, those of you who may be called to the ministry of the gospel. The members of your congregation will show to you awful, great devotion, great devotion. And you must, like David, receive that for what it is. Devotion given to you in the name of the Lord. And therefore devotion to God. You must receive that gift of their devotion. And you must offer it to God in devotion to Him. Remember that's what the Apostle Paul did in the letter to the Philippians. The Philippians had sent him a gift. You remember what the Apostle Paul said that the gift they had sent him was like an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice, well pleasing to God. So when people serve you, you should recognize it's ultimately service to God. Devotion to God means accepting human service as ultimately what is being offered to God to honor. And these are pretty good universal truths. You know, these principles are just fine. Beware of the Jim Jones mentality. When you get positive. Beware of thinking that of course people will be devoted to you. Beware of thinking that you deserve to be treated with great respect and great sacrifice on the part of other people. For, you know, what is it that binds the Church of Jesus Christ together? It's this kind of blessing. It's this kind of loyalty that its members have to one another and to their leaders. And that their leaders must also have to them. You know, there are some people around who are so ready to serve, so ready to show real devotion that you have to be a little careful what you say in front of them. You have some friends like that. You say you want something and they'll just go get it. They were like David's mighty men. You know if it weren't for people like that, the ministry of the church would never go forward. Don't think that the ministry of the church really goes forward because so many ministers have learned the art art of arm twisting. Don't think that the church goes forward because people can be cajoled or brow beaten into doing the things that they have to do if the work is to get done. Now, what brings the work of the church forward is devotion. It's peasant. It's people who show that kind of dedication. It's the kind of people around who are always ready to go and get water from Bethlehem. Some of you may know that movement that's spoken of sometimes as the Washington Fellowship movement. It's a movement that has majored in that very quality. Men who meet together for breakfast usually once a week and pray together and share with one another and become accountable to one another in their Christian lives. And then in those groups are ready to do anything for their brothers, to drop anything, to go anywhere, to make any sacrifice for one of their brothers with whom they pray every week. And you know that's a good example to all of us. We must show the attitude of David's mighty men. But when that added to- By the way, now it's not just be like David, who is it be like? Be like his mighty men. Again, these are not wrong messages in themselves. They are wrong messages by themselves. So we really got nothing to criticize here. You know, we're saying, you certainly don't want to be a selfish leader or a selfish person. But where's it going? It is shown. Then you see it has to be received in the same spirit. For how sad it is. When you do find the attitude among Christian leaders, who think that they have everything coming to them. Christian leaders, you bring them water from Bethlehem, and they say, where's the ice? It never can do enough. No matter how well you try to serve them, there's always a criticism. There's always something you didn't do right. Now listen to it on the road. Christian parents, beware of that attitude. Sometimes we're so critical of our children, you know, that even when they do something for us, we only can criticize the way they did it, instead of realizing what they were trying to do to serve us. What tact, what wisdom, David shows. For he takes their devotion, and he offers it to God. He isn't David a great guy. Now look again at 2nd Samuel 23. He's going to take you somewhere that's important if you're just going to say, be like David. And of course, in doing that, David is also claiming God's own promise. He wanted the water from Bethlehem because he wanted the sign of the victory that God had promised to give him. Now if by God's power three men can go through the Hololist and Army, he knows that God's going to give him the victory. And that water from Bethlehem becomes a pledge of the victory that David knows will be granted to him by God. For you see, when we look at the devotion of David's men to him, and when we look at the devotion of David to the Lord, we're tremendously impressed by that bond of pressing that ties together the people of God's company. Okay, he said it again, my subject is devotion, and we've been tremendously impressed by the devotion of men to man, and we've been tremendously impressed by the devotion of man to God. So that's what the account says, and it certainly has moved us. But we're also drawn to something else. We're drawn to the fact that it is God who redeems his promise to David. And we're drawn to an amazing truth that the word it has said, although it does mean loyalty, and although it does mean devotion, is used in the Old Testament scarcely at all about the devotion of men to men, nor even a devotion of men to God. The Hasidic group of the Jews used this term today to describe themselves as the devoted ones. But in the Old Testament, this term is used almost exclusively for the devotion of God to men. Think about that. God had promised David victory. It was the Lord that gave David water from Bethlehem. It was God's faithfulness to David that gave him men like that, and gave the men the ability to break through the host of the Philistines, and gave to David the water from Bethlehem. David, the Lord's annoying, knew the Hasid, the loving kindness of God. I'd like to read to you just a few verses from the end of this chapter, meditation with me at Nice and Old Drainage, but listen to these verses. Hell's Row, the Carmelite, Parry, the Arbite, Ego, the son of Nathan of Zoba, Benai, the Gadite, Zilek, the Ammonite, Noah, the Erythite, armor bearers to Jorab, the son of Zorae. Aura, the Erythite, Dereb, the Erythite, Euryah, the Hittite, Fertie and Seven in all. This chapter about David's mighty men, this chapter about the men who were deverted to David and ready to lay down their lives for him. This chapter closes with this list of 37 mighty men, 37 deverted ones, 37 heroes of David's army, and the last one to be named is Euryah the Hittite, you know who that was, don't you? For later, when David was well established in his kingdom and had the luxury of being able to remain back in Jerusalem in his palace while his army was in the field. You remember that David saw Bathsheba, the wife of Euryah the Hittite, David, and he'd lost it after her and had her brought to him. And then, when he learned that Bathsheba had conceived of that union, David did that despicable thing. Remember what he did? He had Euryah brought back from the army, assuming that Euryah would go home and sleep with his beautiful wife. But Euryah didn't do it. He stayed in the palace. Why? Because of his Hesse, because of his devotion to David. He was a soldier on service. David had brought him back from the army. He didn't know what the chief had in mind, but he was loyal. And he wouldn't go home because he was on duty. And when David saw that that was his determined purpose, he sent him back to the army, you remember, with a message all right, with a message to Joab, to put him in the front of the battle and to retire from him so that he died. Joab did what David requested. And so that his own general ship wouldn't be criticized later when he described the maneuver he added the sentence. Your servant, Euryah, is dead also. David murdered Euryah. It is not such a good guy. Would David say, be like David, well, there are certain aspects of his life that are exemplary, but there are certain aspects of his life where God surely must rescue him. And the story is not complete until the rescue is fully known. You see, friends, why do we have this account from the Old Testament? This account that shows us God's faithfulness to David. But this account that tells us so frankly, so starkly, of David's unfaithfulness to God, David's breach of his sin. For David, who could show such sympathy and understanding when he poured out that water rather than drink it, that same David could have another man just like that and we're not even sure if the names, I don't know, maybe Euryah was one of the three, but he was ready to have one of his mighty men murdered so that he could have his wife. Why does the Word of God give us this? You know why? This is absolutely critical, right? He's answering the key question. So why is this really here? Okay, if it's not just say, be like David, why is it here? It's because the Old Testament narratives of God's dealings with Israel are leading us forward to the great work of salvation that God would do when he sent his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, into the world. And we are given that image of the kingship under David in order that we might be prepared to know him for his God's true annoying to Jesus Christ. And how we may praise God tonight, my friends, that we have that picture, that incident from the life of David to remind us of Jesus Christ of the king that we have. For you see, we are not called to make our earthly loyalties ultimate. We see the danger of a nationalism that is utter devotion. We see the danger that comes when men are totally devoted to another man, and there's only one who deserves our ultimate devotion and that one is the God, man, Jesus Christ. It is really sweet that they're at the end of that account of David's mighty men. You have the name Uriah, right? I mean, you just kind of go, wow, that is a skilled biblical writer who's written that material in that way, right? I mean, it just is, you know, the cherry on top to kind of tell you what to look for. You know, it's just so apparent. But let me ask you, if Uriah had not been mentioned right there like that, could you have still preached this passage redemptively? There isn't always going to be the cherry on top, right? I mean, sometimes it's going to be, so if you had the account, the narrative, but not the listing of names with Uriah there at the bottom, could you have preached this passage redemptively? What would have been ways to do that? You still know how the story of David's going to go, don't you? You still know that David is going to fail, and his children are going to fail. And at the end of his life, he's going to number his troops in a step of error. I mean, you still, nothing in interpreting this passage says I have to suddenly go blind to the rest of David's life. I know. Okay, so to interpret this passage apart from the rest of his life is not actually to truly interpret it. It has a context within the life of David. So that's kind of near context. Okay, if we were doing micro-redemptive historical method, we would say, all right, right here, fairly close in, I understand that David is not the ultimate leader. Okay? Now, even though David's not the ultimate leader, what promises have come to David already? He's going to have an eternal kingdom. He will sit on the throne forever, and his progeny will. So we know all the awful things about David, and still we know, despite his unfaithfulness, even to the people who have been so good to him, his own people, God is still going to be faithful to David. And that's expanding a little bit further, isn't it? So that's taking the redemptive, and we're saying, I can go a little further out and say, redemptive historical method is letting me say, here's another way in which God is showing his grace to David. What else could I do? I've kind of, could I extend any further? Yes, very good. So I could go backwards as well as forward to saying, David is a chapter in the life of the covenant people that's much more extensive. And that covenant keeping God is, again, the hero of the text, despite David's failures here. Plount to use the language has different terms that you hear, kind of biblical theological focus. He said, this account is leading us. Remember, I said, leading us forward to a greater king. Now, that's kind of very familiar language so that we say, yes, God provided his king in this covenant succession of understanding. But this account is leading us forward to the need for a greater king. Quite often, as a matter of fact, when I'm preaching on Old Testament narratives, I will say something like, here's grace in Old Testament clothes. There's some way that God is acting that is showing us his nature in this account. And we know that about David. Just David loses kingship because of his affair with Bashida and murder of murder of who? You're right. You're right. Thank you. You're right. You're right. Thank you. Now David is one of those who have a mental slip there and you'd say, no, I mean God is still maintaining. Any other ways that you could go? There's little cues here and there. What if you hadn't even told the whole account. Where David is outside his own home city, which is what? Bethlehem. Now with that leapfrogging to Gaugafa, is it significant that the Lord's anointed is not able to get in his own hometown. How's he gonna ultimately get in his own hometown and rule over it? God's going to have to provide it for it because it's now the king of Israel has got him outside. He can't do it. So God's got to act in David's behalf. I guess I'm just trying to say there are different ways of doing this. Could be the macrointerpretation, but you could come in a lot closer and say there may be things here that are showing me the grace, principles, or patterns, most fully represented in the ministry of Christ, but what grace, principles, or patterns could be right here as well. On the bottom of the sheet that you have, which was today's lecture, I'm not planning on going through all this, I mean to give you something of a little, almost index to gold's worthy. And you're saying, all right, how do I learn to see grace, principles, and patterns? In different types of biblical genre, I mean, we've looked at a narrative and we've recognized the problems to always of saying, you know, just be like David, but where do you begin to see in other forms of biblical material? So Roman II at the bottom, expounding various biblical genres with Christ-centered lenses, you would say, how a redemptive truce evident in historical narrative? Well, God's plan may be evident in biblical narratives. This way is symbol and sacrament, promise leading to deliverance, an unconditional covenant being established, ingrathting of the undeserving, like Ruth, right, like Rehab. You know, there are various ways in which God's plan is being exposed in biblical narrative. Second page, God's character may be evidence in some way in the biblical passage, through his interaction with his people, through the behavior of some individual representing God. Of grace, maybe stated in some way in a biblical narrative, maybe the narrator or say it, maybe a character within the story will say it, maybe just the way the plot unfolds, that God will be gracious toward the undeserving. How a redemptive truce evident in the gospels? Well, I'm going to roll through these, right? I mean, it's identifying how Christ is being presented to his people and the role of that particular narrative in the gospel passages. And again, it's kind of a reminder that sometimes the miracles are serving as proofs of Christ authority or identity, rather than a promise of repetition for all people for all time. How a redemptive truce evident in the epistles? It may be by statements, by context, or even by key terms that are being used. That's page three at the top. Because the gospels will have key terms, the most key of which is in Christ, the union with Christ terminology, as well as all the doctrinal terms that you're familiar with. How a redemptive truce evident in poetry and wisdom literature? Candidly, that's the toughest. Okay? It's just simple instruction, you know, train up a child, and the way he should go when he's old, he'll not depart from it, you say, where is a redemptive truce there? The way you begin to see it is recognize you have to read the redemptive truth from the whole of a wisdom genre, not just individual verses. The redemptive truth is often a response to or a journey to understanding of God's mighty acts or his faithfulness or his love or his wisdom. Redemptive truth and prophecy is more obvious in terms of the prophecy when it deals with God's provision through Christ, et cetera. Now I'm going through that very fast and you recognize it. Because I recognize, if I went through it in detail, it wouldn't stick. You know, you're going to have to work through and preach those passages in order for you and hopefully maybe refer to a sheet like that, or the golds worthy and say, all right, here I'm going through song of Solomon, how is redemptive truth here, and you almost have to work through it with some reference material to begin to see it. But there are some things I want you to be aware of that we're doing this semester. This hasn't changed. We're still going to do main points and sub points from the text. So we're going to say, what in that account is proving that principle that you just said? That's not going to change. So main points have to be from that text and the sub points that you're establishing have to be exhibited or stated in that passage. Exhibited or stated in that passage must be the sub points that you're making. We will still have an illustration for every main point. And I can't remember who asked it the other day if it was Aaron or somebody. May the narrative itself serve as the illustration, the answer is yes. If you kind of retell that portion of the narrative, it's possible the narrative itself could serve as the illustration. But still there needs to be an illustration for every main point. And we're still going to rain down key terms from these principles. In the main points and sub points, we're still going to rain down key terms in the illustration because we got to apply these things. These truths ultimately have to be applied. The main thing that you're being held accountable for this semester, beyond obviously, is what you're saying from the text is, are you answering all four questions of application? So what to do, where to do, that's still there. But ultimately, are you motivating through these grace principles that you're discerning? Are you creating love for God? That is the motivation for following these instructions. And the harder question, the one that you'll probably wrestle with for the rest of your life, how do people do what they're told to do? Creating the love that is the power. Remember the expulsive power of a new affection? To build love for Christ that undermines the attraction of sin because if it does not attract you, it has no power over you. Now, there are other things, of course, practical suggestions of accountability and Christian disciplines, all of those. But even those are about building love for Christ, or they actually destroy true Godliness. If they're just about earning brownie points with God, they actually destroy faithfulness. Instead of saying, what I'm doing with all these even practical means of following God is learning to love Him more. The things that I would hope you would walk away from, and I'm going to try to get done quickly here, so you can ask questions about all we've talked about. If I said, what do I hope you'll walk away with from these four lectures? If you get number one here, I'm pretty happy. God is the hero of every text, getting is not the hero, Joshua is not the hero, David is not the hero. Ultimately, God is the hero. The text is pointing to the rescue that God provides, somehow that's occurring. And the reason we started with F-C-F way back in Prependell is because if you really identified a burden of the text, the fallenness that requires the truth, divine solutions must be given. So by dealing with an F-C-F, you will always force yourself to bring God to the rescue. Redemptive truth has to echo from what you're doing. As you begin to look for ademptive truth to use the two lenses, just kind of standard, say, was this tell me about God? Was this tell me about me? What does the life of David tell you about God? He's amazingly patient, faithful, covenant-keeping, true to his promise, true, all those things you know about God, and ultimately providing for those who deserve none of it. What do we learn about ourselves? Even the best of us can be guilty of horrible betrayal of God. I learn about myself, I learn about God. I learn about the deadly bees that I, now listen guys, I preach this stuff and still sometimes I walk away from a sermon and say, what did I just do? All I did was I told them to straighten up and fly right. But at least have a tool to say, now I know that even I walk away from it, I at least can recognize it for its error, that if all it was was moral instruction, then I recognize that's insufficient for a minister of the gospel. Or Swiss cheese, that God holds in them, are you going to tell them that simply doing better things is what's going to fill the hole? Ultimately it has to be the work of God, and that work of God will be revealed as you begin to look in passages for these grace principles. How is God's grace being displayed here, ultimately revealed in Christ but even here, how am I seeing the grace of God being displayed? And what changes you, and I think changes your preaching, is when you begin to recognize that if you've begun with that F-C-F, here's the burden of the text, here's what people are struggling with, that what my goal in preaching now is to take truth to struggle. That's where you become this physician of souls that's so beautiful to your own heart. I'm taking truth to struggle, not just heaping more information or more behavior responsibility on people. I'm actually bringing the grace of God into their lives by dealing with that hope that they need. And that's the final thing. Comment denominator of all great preaching is what? It's about hope, it's giving people hope, comment denominator of all great preaching. And if that's what we're doing, we'll struggle, mightily, even this semester. How do I preach that passage redemptively? But if you know that ultimately my aim is to give people hope and their fallenness, then the struggle is well worth it and your preaching becomes a beautiful thing. Now, I want to back away a little bit and kind of let you all ask whatever questions you want on this material, where's Matt? I can't remember what you asked the other day, but I remember kind of walking out of class and thinking, I don't think I answered that very well. Do you remember what you asked? For me, what often you find in, how should I say, hypervossian circles, to be very technical here, is you get such an emphasis on the why and the how, that the what and the where fall away, you know, there is no instruction. And in fact, to give instruction is looked down upon. The other side of that is kind of the straight legalism is where the why and the how fall away and all we get is what and where. So what I think is the true Calvinist history and tradition is to say, the law doesn't fall away. The law is the safe path. It's the path, not only of God's glory, it's the path of good for us. But what makes us not only walk down the path but not stray from it is love for Christ. So if you say, how do I live out this love for Christ? You want to say, well, you already said, if you love me, you'll keep my commands. So it's it's glorious to him, but good for us, even as loving my wife faithfully is good for me. So I want us to kind of keep both hands together, right, not say law or gospel. I want to say it's gospel motivation for what glorifies God and brings us good. But it is not, of course, ignoring why and how, which would say, oh, well, if I do good, you know, then God will love me more or make my life happy or something. Well, actually, that's making the law conditional, God's love conditional upon your obeying the law, which is how most people live. And that's obviously I'm weighing in against that while trying to weigh in against the antinomianism at the same time. Go ahead, Matt. Okay. Good. Other questions you all have? Logan? Logan is saying, to what extent does the FCF actually have to come from the text? I think the wording of the FCF has to come from the text, not necessarily at all, but the meaning of the FCF has to be derived from the text. There must be something in, now context is part of text, something to say, why is this written? You know, what was going wrong? What was a miss? What was the burden of the writer has to at least be determined by the text for its context? So the ultimate meaning of the FCF has to be, you have to be able to prove it's there, either by text or context. But you could word it a thousand different ways, just the same, almost like we talked about a proposition. You know, a proposition could be worded a thousand different ways, but you've got to say, I can prove that proposition is in the text, I've got to be able to prove that FCF is actually what the biblical writer had in view here. And that in itself is an exegetical task, either by text or context, right? So sure, so that you would say the FCF in omnis, any given narrative, you would have multiple possibilities for the FCF. And I will go back to, we're kind of back to the hermeneutic professor's definition of the difference between meaning and significance. Meaning doesn't change, but its significance could have many categories. So as I'm looking at the FCF of a passage, and I might say, this passage is meant to deal with people's distrust of the love of God, you know, that's one possibility. Well, then I might, you know, I'm thinking pasturally now, how do I approach that? Well, I may be saying something about it's believing our circumstances show God is not loving. Well, that's kind of a significance of the truth that's there in the way that I worded that. It's a multiple wordings of the FCF that deal with the significance of that truth that's there. But still we have to say, I've got to prove that that was the concern of the biblical writer, that basic meaning question can't really vary and be true to the text. What are your greatest concerns about doing this semester? You kind of go, whoa, this worries me. What worries you about doing redemptive historical or Christ's inner preaching? What worries you? I didn't play the rest of the met. We kind of stopped, right, when he said, what was the purpose of the text? And I must tell you, it's the weakest part of the sermon. He kind of washes back over these applications real quickly and talks about it's being motivated by the love of Christ to do these, but how should I say it's the weak part of the message? So once he's kind of given me my, it leads you forward to understand what Christ may do. You know, I didn't keep going through the brief remainder part of the message. But you're right to say, how do you keep it from just being tack on, or worse, do what Clowney did every week go down this way and then back up and go that way, you know, if you did that every week, people would just kind of wait for the ironic twist, you know, well, where's they going to do it now? I think it's the recognition that there are different strategies to do this, all legitimate. Sometimes we are going to say, if Christ has provided His grace for you, what are the implications? So we may kind of lay the grace foundation right at the beginning. Other times we're going to kind of build the case all the way through. What else did God do for it? What else did God do? What else did God do? Other times we may do something of a Clowney thing. We may say, here's all these things you must do, but let me tell you something. If your heart is not right with the Lord, you've got absolutely no chance. And therefore I have to tell you what makes your heart right with God that gives you any hope. So I will say a tack on is better than not at all, but His tack on was strategic. I mean, after all, He knew that your eye was hanging down there at the end of the text. So He kind of wanted to lead us aware where the impact would be the greatest. If your tack on is kind of the preached the law and then do an alter call at the end, you know, that's where we'll kind of feel. There's nothing in the text that gives you the basis for doing that. So it's certainly a danger, I think, to do the tack on. Unless you're saying, again, what in text or context allows me to point to the culmination of these grace principles, and that's a harder thing. But you know, it's kind of the glory of gospel eyes. And you'll hear it real soon right now, right? If you hear a sermon even this week that is nothing but the deadly bees, you will automatically know it. I mean, you almost can't walk away from this time and seminary and hear a purely moralistic message and not recognize it for what it is. Now, the hard part is, of course, how do you correct it? You know, how do you see the grace that's there? And that's where hearing each other and helping one another this semester, I hope, is part of the process of seeing it. Dale? Oh, that's a good question. How often do you answer the questions, why and how? I think you've got to do what, I mean, you know, you're getting more licenses, you go through the curriculum here. But typically, most of us want to say, if I've spent all this time developing these truths, I want to do what and where, and virtually every main point, okay? The why and how I think you've got to do somewhere before the sermon ends, that they're a lot less specific, I think, in terms of where they occur. I think you just want to say before they walk away, I want to make sure I've done these. So it may be early or late or woven through. These, every main point, these somewhere in the sermon, I think that's right. I think the SCF often gives you the insight into how you will be doing the why and the how. The why is, I don't mean, you can say it 10,000 ways, but the why is almost always responsive love to the grace of God. The why is almost all, I mean, how many ways can you describe love? I mean, poets have done it for, you know, 4,000 years in all kinds of ways, but the why is almost always the love of God. The how, I think is the tougher one, to say to people, here are these practical means, here are these ways of getting information to it, here are practices that will help you do it. But ultimately, even the how is out of a greater love for Christ, which is why the why can't be forgotten. You mean most of this course is about the why? You've already got the what and the where in mind. So much of this course is making sure that the why comes in to view. Other things, yes. Do you hear the time management question? Just, you know, if you're going to preach Genesis to Revelation in every sermon, it is going to get a little long, you know. Old preacher's rule, which should be the, if you've got to have a long main point, which one should it be, the first or the last, first, not last, you're accelerating, okay? So you're accelerating for attention and impact. And my sense is, if you're going to do the redemptive truth at the end, it pretty much has to carry the whole freight to that main point, you know, it's got, it's just got to be, so you've got to say, that's, the redemptive truth is the third main point, that's pretty much all I'm saying in that third main point, all right. If it's foundation on being interwoven, then your time management is not different than, you know, any other kind of major issue. But if it's not in view to the third main point, you know it's going to have to be there. And it's going to have to be kind of the main thing said, just because you haven't got time in the acceleration process to say much more. So that's one hint. If it's waiting for the third point, I bank it pretty much the whole third point. Another major is, have you discovered this the way that you're wording main points? If you say something like, my first main point is, we must obey God. My second main point is, we must honor God and my third main point is, we must trust God. All the emphasis is upon what we must do, which makes it harder to interweave redemptive truths. And if the truth principles are what God has done, God redeems his people, God forgives the unforgivable, you know, some grace principle is the wording of the main point. Then even your wording is carrying a lot of the exegetical baggage, baggage wrong term, exegetical weight, because you're proving that truth. And then your application is an implication of that truth. But it's a natural unfolding of the truth that you've done. So stating your main point as grace principles or redemptive truths carries a lot of time help for you in the way things go. Yours is a great question. I haven't thought about it so much that way before. But I am aware that if I haven't done the redemptive truth to the third main point, that basically is the third main point, because you just don't have time for anything else at that point.