Kingship and First Samuel

This program is a production of the Reformed Forum online at ReformedForum.org. This is Christ the Center episode number 121. Today we speak with John Woodhouse about kingship and Samuel. Christ the Center is listener supported and we thank everyone who helps to make this program possible. To read more about how you can contribute please visit ReformedForum.org/donate. Welcome to Christ the Center doctrine for life your weekly conversation of Reformed theology. My name is Camden Busey and I have with me today Jim Cassidy who is pastor of Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Ringo's New Jersey. Thanks for joining us Jim. It's good to be here Camden. We also have his colleague Jeff Waddington who is teacher of the congregation there in Ringo's. It's great to have you on Jeff. Oh it's good to be here. And we're very pleased today to be welcoming all the way from across the globe even across the hemispheres the Reverend Dr. John Woodhouse who is principal at more theological college in Sydney, Australia. It's an honor to have you on Dr. Woodhouse. Thanks for joining us. It's a great pleasure to be with you Camden. Even if it is white past my bit. Well I have a good friend at Westminster who's from Sydney so he always reminds me how big the time difference is and how everything is different down in Sydney. But he's pleased. He was very excited to hear that we are going to have you join us just to let us know a little bit about what's going on in Australia. And we're going to be speaking today about Dr. Woodhouse's commentary on first Samuel subtitled Looking for a Leader. It is in the Preaching the Word series which is from Crossway Books published back in 2008. But to get our discussion on this book started I'm going to pass things over to Jim who was actually using this he's putting it to the test at his church there in Ringo's New Jersey. So take it away Jim. Thank you very much here Camden. The commentary has been quite useful here Dr. Woodhouse in the States at least in a little part of the country I could testify to in a little town called Ringo's in the state of New Jersey and we really here appreciate the work. I know the thing about this commentary and the series that it's found in namely the series called Preaching the Word. It's particularly designed is it not Dr. Woodhouse for Preaching. It almost sounds like that these are a series of sermons you have done. Are these in fact this commentary made up of sermons that you presented elsewhere? Much of the material is Jim and you're quite right about the series the series designed like that are many of the volumes in the series are of course Kent uses sermons at college church in Wheaton that have been put into print. I think he had a marvelous discipline of preaching on Sunday and then getting the material worked out on Monday and so the books were produced over the years. Britain was not strictly done like that although many of the chapters began as sermons but there is there tends to be a little bit more in the text than I would normally be able to put in in most expositions in an ordinary situation but the style is intended to be like that it's meant to be an exposition rather than just a technical commentary. Sure now the subtitle of this particular volume is looking for a leader would you be able to speak a little bit about how that's a meta narrative if you will or that overarching theme of looking for a leader holds together the book or the yeah the one single book I suppose of first and second Samuel but particularly with with first Samuel. But of course one Samuel opens in that situation that is described at the end of the book of Judges which chronologically just precedes the book of one Samuel where every man did what was right and he don't eyes and there was no king in Israel and the assessment there at the end of the book of Judges seems to be of a period of anarchy and that's certainly what it looks like in the last few chapters of Judges where a nation is in chaos not only of they discarded their God but the leadership they have such as it is is corrupt and ineffective and inept and you have a nation indeed of leadership but it's not just a nation indeed of leadership it's God's people in need of leadership and without proper and and wise and good leadership the nation is suffering suffering internally and suffering externally from enemies from without and corruption from within and that's the kind of scene you get in the opening chapters of one Samuel until you get to the point where the the people come to Samuel I'm cutting the story a little short and necessarily here of course but in chapter eight where the people come to Samuel and demand a king so they can be like the nations they've looked around and they've seen some stability in the nations around about some strength and so on and they want to be like the nations around about they want the kind of strong worldly leadership that gives the appearance of stability in the nations around about and they're given saw as a response to their demand for a king like the nations he's an out of failure but God in his grace and mercy is determined to watch over his people and despite their failures and their rebelliousness to provide what they need which is a different kind of king and the the the story of how David eventually becomes their king is where the book of one Samuel is leading so it's a it's a gripping yarn apart from anything else it's a mega one of the things that that really did strike me and working on one Samuel is just how wonderfully the story is told it's it's just rich it's rich literature apart from it's wondrous as the word of God it's a it's just a marvelous narrative of a period of Israel's history that was so significant and such a political turmoil out of which the nation emerged of course the kingdom of David which will be the story of two Samuel. Let me ask you a question in flowing from what you have said that has always and perhaps as we come to that as I come to that section in your commentary you'll you'll deal with this but share with our audience if you would a little bit about the relationship between the human king and the divine king on the one hand it seems as if when particularly one Samuel 8 where they demand Israel demands a human king like the nations and of course they get Saul and it seems that there's an indication there that they get Saul as a rebuke for not desiring God as their king and so the question I guess I have is is it in fact according to the biblical narrative is it in fact God himself who is expecting to be the king of Israel and if so what is then the relation between gods perhaps offense for not being made as it were king of Israel desired to be the king of Israel and then the human kings that he eventually gives to the people of Israel. It's a complicated question Jim a terrific question and I will attempt to say something helpful I'm not not sure that I can give a definitive answer one of the curious things is that God is rarely called king before Israel has a king now that was a bit of a surprise to me to find that I'm not saying it never happens but the title of king applied to God becomes very prominent and in the Psalms and in the prophets but prior to the books of Samuel in the earlier books it really is quite rare. The idea of a king did have negative associations I think in the ancient world. The king who was an autocrat the king who wielded his power in various ways that were ugly and horrible that image didn't easily get applied to God it needed all sorts of qualifications and modifications it wasn't really until I think God had given Israel a human king and defined the terms of kingship in Israel which were to be very different from the kings of the nations the king in Israel was to be a very different kind of king then it was that you could with clear understanding called God king now I'm sort of skating edge of question I think but as I read the books of Samuel and then of course go on and read the rest of the Bible's the Bible story. While God is to be the ruler over his people as he is the ruler over the world, he does this through a king who may appoint to his man. Ultimately he does it through the Lord Jesus. He is the king appointed by God to rule over his creation and to rule over his people. It's not simply theological, it's ultimately Christological the king question. When Saul fails and God says that he will appoint a king after his own heart, that's an expression that I think is much misunderstood in Christian piety and Christian history, it means a king of God's choice. It doesn't mean a godly king. He will be a godly king and he must be a godly king, but the phrase itself a king after God's own heart is a king that God sets his heart upon, a king of God's choice. And that's very different from the king that the people choose. God chooses a king for his people. We need a king. We need a human king. We need a king like us. We need a king who will understand us. We need a king who can lead us. And David was a shadow of that king. Of course the Lord Jesus is the fulfillment of that intention. Now that's just, somebody is getting around your question a little bit, but there is this intriguing thing that I'm not quite sure that I can get to the bottom of, but within the scriptures it does seem that God's people need, and it would be interesting to discuss why this is, maybe maybe you can help me here, but God's people need a human king, not just God as their king. I think what is their king for a king? I think what's interesting when you find in that the first Samuel passage of the asking for a king, I don't know if anyone's treated this in commentaries and I might just be, I don't think I'm making things up, but as I was translating it for class, I noticed that the, that the name Saul is almost sounds when you pronounce it, just like the verb to ask. And it says, you have asked me for a king. And, and so God gives them a king that almost represents their asking and their, their mistake. But then you find, you will find it in a commentary mind. Well, as you can see I haven't, they haven't looked through it as detailed as, as Jim has. So I'm sorry, that's a little bit pompous. No, no, no, no, no, I know we're just, we're just being friendly here, that's fine. Yeah, yeah, chapter eight has this language of asking for a king. And then chapter nine, when you meet Saul, you're right, if you're reading it in the Hebrew, you're introduced to a man whose name is now like asked for. And it really is very curious. And, and, and of course, that, no, there is a ploy on that name that's made quite explicit by the, the narrator in chapter one, when Samuel sounds a little bit similar, but, but that isn't the same. It's, it's the name Saul that really has been asked for. Yeah. Right. Yeah. That's a great point. So, if I may break in, what was the, was there anything sinful about asking for a king, or was the sin the, the motive for asking for a king? I think that the, the, the, not only the sin, but the, the foolishness was asking for a king like the nations. Right. That's what I was thinking. Yeah. That, that, that seems to be underlined in chapter eight, but chapter eight of, the narrator's got his own ironic sense of humor, and sense of humor is perhaps not quite the right word, but, but, but a sense of the, the terrible irony of that situation where the whole story up till now has been the story of leaders whose sons are a disaster. So, Samuel was the great leader, sorry, go back before Samuel Eli, who had his good points. He, he had his weaknesses as well, but his sons weren't utter disaster. Then, Samuel comes along and Samuel is a, is a great king, one of the greatest, but his sons are a disaster. His sons are just like Eli's sons, and, and we're told that right at the beginning of one Samuel chapter eight, and then along come the elders, and they, they underline the point. They, they say to Samuel, look, you're, you're old and your sons don't walk in your way. They're, they're, they're a disaster. So, a point for us a king, and what he's saying, a point for us a leader who will be succeeded by his sons for, part of the essence of kingship is that hereditary element. And so, give us a, give us a system that is going to reproduce the system that has just failed. I mean, the, the, the, the, the, the folly of thinking that having a hereditary monarchy will solve our problems, it was an extraordinary, you know, it is displayed by the, the writer here to be, to be utter folly, because it is the very problem that they have, that even okay leadership like Eli, or very fine leadership like Samuel, can actually have sons who are utterly hopeless. And so, how, how will a king, that kind of kingship, a kingship like the nation solve it, solve their problems, what fools they were. The reason I, I was asking that question is that they're told earlier on in, in the Pentateuch that there would be a king. Yes. And so, I guess, I'd, some, some folk, when they come to this passage, act surprised, that there's a desire for a king when, when early back in the Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 70, yeah. Thank you. They're, they're, they're told that, in the qualifications for the, or what the descriptive job description is given by God as to what the king would do. And so, why is it, that some preachers and/or commentators talking as if this, this is something that comes up out of the blue? Yeah. Well, what I think Moses says back in Deuteronomy 17 is along these lines, when the time comes and you do ask for a king, and Moses actually foresees that they'll ask for a king like the nations. That's these very words. I've just got, just flipped it open here at Deuteronomy 17 verse 14, and Moses foresees that the day will come when they'll ask for a king like the nations round about me. And then he says, you may indeed have a king over you, but then he says he's not to be like the kings of the nations. He seems to prescribe that this king will be, from among your brothers, he shall, he shall not do this, that, and the other, he outlines the kind of things that the kings and the nations do, but the king in Israel is not to be like that. I think you find that comparison pretty explicit in Psalm 2 where he says, why did the nations rage in the people's plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against as anointed, and it goes on a little bit to describe what they do. But then in verse 6, the Lord says, as for me, I have set my king on Zion my holy hill, and there's two levels. There's a typological level there in which he's speaking of David and of the correct mind that goes through Judah. But ultimately, of course, we know the Psalms about Jesus Christ, the human end divine king who comes in his set or the the literal translation is even poured out, almost like an image poured out as the king upon Zion. So you find it there exactly the need for the human element, one from among the brothers yet, a very distinct picture that this king is not like the kings of the nations. Now, that's excellent. That's very helpful, brother. And Psalm 2 is pivotal, I think, for understanding where the story of one Samuel is leading. It's a marvelous connection between the one Samuel's story or the one M2 Samuel's story, really, and the New Testament. Yep. Yep. Absolutely, David. Well, I was wondering if there would be a connection. If this would be behind, you know, when Jesus compares, you know, what a, I guess, leadership in the churches, like, as opposed to leadership in the world, or being a disciple, first being last, last being first and so on. Yeah. Yeah. I do think it is one of the lessons we take away from a book like, or from the book of one Samuel, is that our ideas of leadership really need to be turned upside down. What really matters in a leader? You see, Saul had it all. He was tall. He was powerful. He was effective, actually. The writer doesn't dwell on it, but there are brief summaries of what he managed to achieve in his time, and it was considerable. So there was an impressiveness to this leader in the way in which leaders tend to impress us, but he was not godly. He disobeyed God, and that meant he was utterly useless as a leader of God's people. He disobeyed God in what appears. to be, you reach chapter 13 carefully, appears to be a most understandable situation, where what he did seemed to be the sensible thing to do, but it was disobeying God's, it wasn't, and so Samuel says to him, so strikingly there, you fool. Why is he a fool for one thing only? You disobey God. You disobey God. You cannot be the leader of God's people if you are disobeyed. It reminds you of, oh, that's okay. It reminds you of the sons of Zebedee, you know, James and John coming to Jesus saying, you know, let us be first and you're right hand left hand in the kingdom. And Jesus just turns that entire concept of what true leadership is upside down and uses himself as the ultimate fulfillment of what it means to be a leader where the first is, in fact, last to find your life actually means to lose it, to live means to die, etc. Yeah, we've got to watch it these days. It's very, very important, I think, that there are lessons there for us, aren't there, when our leaders become celebrities, when our pastors become celebrities? That's right. It's not always the pastors fault sometimes, it's the way which they are adulated by others, but it really is a very relevant lesson for us to recognize that worldly leadership is not the way in which God's people are to be led. I think maybe a biblical theological dimension might be another way to get a handle on this question of what the ideal king looks like or what his requirements are now. We very much appreciate what you're doing down at more theological college and we think of your work, we think of other Australian and Southern Hemisphere works, such as Graham Goldsworthy and all the biblical theological stuff that's so great. And obviously, when we're dealing with Samuel, one of the principal figures is David and then also through the Psalms and then Chronicles. And I've been thinking recently about the different depictions of David in those three sections of the canon. And what you find is almost a different emphasis in each of them upon different aspects of who David was. We think of the depiction in Chronicles, which is much different, very pro. It chooses to disclose certain things and emphasize other things. And it choose to remove a lot of his sin and the failures of David, whereas Samuel contains them. But what you do find in Chronicles is his counting of the army. And the question is, well, why is that in there if the rest of it's been removed? And I wonder, if it might have something to do with Psalm 51, and we think of at least the ideal typological king, might be one who he's supposed to obey, but when he doesn't, what does he do? He repents and he repents truly and faithfully and understands that he has sinned against God and sinned against him alone. So I wonder if in your study of Samuel, if you've noticed this or drawn any of these biblical theological themes out, as we compare the figure David across Psalm and across Chronicles trying to understand what that king is supposed to do and what he's supposed to look like. There's a marvelous project brother. I haven't gone into it. I'm ever so grateful to the Joseph Crossway. They've actually asked me to do not only two Samuel, but one in two kings and one in two Chronicles eventually. It's my life's work, I think, for the rest of the next decade. That would be fantastic. But while I'm looking forward to doing it very much, and I hope that I can get the time to do it, but certainly the exercise of just seeing the whole picture of the Old Testament presentation of David in these narratives in the Psalms. Also, of course, in the prophets where David appears as a figure for the future, really is very important background for, it's assumed, isn't it? When you open your New Testament, the first sentence that the Jesus of whom Matthew speaks is son of David, and that whole history, I think, comes crashing into the opening sentence of the New Testament. That opening sentence of the New Testament will be enriched by everything that we understand from these books. I agree with you wholeheartedly on its importance. In the Samuel work, I didn't do so much on it, but I take it, it's a reasonable assumption. I don't know whether anybody could prove it, but it's a reasonable assumption that Chronicles was written on the assumption that its readers would be familiar with Samuel. Any suggestion that there's any contradiction between the two is folly, but you're quite right. I think that when you get the Chronicles, you might say here is David seen through the eyes of grace. This is David under God's grace. This is what God's grace made David. It isn't the whole story of David, but it's the most important story of David. Therefore, yes, a lot of things that we know from other parts and that the writer assumes you're familiar with are not emphasized. I like your explanation. I'll remember it when I get rid of the Chronicles. Well, it's not all of mine. I must check a lot of that up to my professor, Doug Green, who's also an Australian, though. He's been pulling some of these themes out in a class I'm taking, but I don't know. Chronicles might be a way to look forward, depending on people's views of when it was written, but certainly being much later, might be a way to say, "I look forward." Yes, it does. Here's an idealized David. It's not lying. It's not doing anything like that. I think your assumption is correct. We don't find a contradiction there, but we find an emphasis on the better parts of his life. It is a way, I think, to look forward to the coming Messiah. Chronicles are very eschatological, looking forward to what Jesus would come to do. We know there is no fault or folly in our Lord Christ, so. Yeah. Fascinating. I don't think that too much should be made of this, but fascinating that Chronicles closes the Hebrew Canon. It's the last book of the Hebrew Canon. So Ezra and Nehemiah get put earlier, and you close with Chronicles, which therefore does have that forward-looking look. Yeah. Dr. Woodhouse, I'm going to ask you a broad question here, and feel free to go where you want with it, and take it and run. This is your opportunity to impose your view upon us, and we want you to take this opportunity to really minister to us, and to aspiring Old Testament scholars, and might be listening. Tell us, what, in your opinion, what makes faithful, Old Testament scholarship? Wow. Like I said, it's a big question, because I'm sure there's a lot of things to it, but just feel free to tell us your opinion of Popeye. Where do we start? Okay, give me a few minutes of this one, are you? Sure. Yeah. The starting point, I take it, that any faithful exposition of God's word would proclaim Christ. I think that I can't think of any better words than Paul's in Colossians 1.28. Him we proclaim. Why are we studying this word? Why are we proclaiming these scriptures? Why are we expounding the scriptures at all? We're doing it in order to proclaim Christ. That's why they've been given to us. Although there are one or two exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule, but the rule is that almost every time the New Testament sites the Old Testament, it's in order to show us Christ. It's a fascinating study to try and find any Old Testament text in the New Testament that is not being used to show us Christ. And so the Old Testament scholar has to say, "Well, how do I do that? How is the Old Testament about Christ?" There are various answers to that, and there's a lot of discussion and disagreement, but it seems to me that the basic answer, and I don't think it's necessarily only one way that the Old Testament proclaims Christ, but the basic structure within which the whole of the Scriptures proclaim Christ to us is by telling the story of salvation, the story of promise and fulfillment. From the beginning. So the Old Testament scholar must grasp the movement that takes place through the Canon of Scripture, the movement of the history, of course, but then the movement and where the other material that doesn't fit neatly into the historical storyline fits. And when you do that, I think you see the very great importance of the promise to Abraham, in Genesis 12, 1 to 3, which is in a sense, or not in a sense, he's actually a reaffirmation by God of his creation purposes. He created in order to bless sin came in, the fall ensued and sin spread, and you get to Genesis 12. God reaffirms his purpose to bless not only Abraham and Abraham's descendants, but all the families of the earth. The Bible story is then the story of how God was faithful to that promise that he made to Abraham in Genesis 12. That promise that Paul will one day call the gospel proclaimed beforehand. I think that's Galatians 3 verse 8. That promise that would be ultimately fulfilled in Jesus. The promise that I think accounts for Jesus saying Abraham saw my day. That is because he heard this promise that was to be ultimately fulfilled in Jesus. Now when I turn to any part of the Old Testament, my sort of big question when I'm trying to see that passage or that book or that chapter in its context is how does this part of the Old Testament relate in the first place to the promised Abraham. It's often a very difficult question to answer. One Samuel is not too hard because it's part of a storyline, but it's where this book fits in the story of the promise that God made to Abraham moving towards its fulfillment. The story of God's faithfulness to that promise. Where does this part of the Bible fit? Some parts of the Bible are very hard to work out where it fits, but I'm convinced just on the basis of the unity of Scripture and the prominence and importance of Genesis 12, 1 to 3 that every part of the Old Testament in one way or another is related to that promise. And when we work that out then you're on the way to understanding how this text is related to the fulfillment of that promise. It might foreshadow that fulfillment. It might itself in one way or another point to that fulfillment. It might be the dark side of failure of God's people that highlights the brilliant light of God's faithfulness and his wonderful promises. But the key to the terrific question you've asked, but I think the key to faithful Old Testament scholarship is making sure you're not swept up by the academic world, which keeps insisting that the Old Testament should be studied on its own. It's the in a part of the fragmentation of knowledge. I think where people become specialists and therefore want to guard their speciality. We haven't done this here at more college, but we really should not have Old Testament departments and New Testament departments. We have here, we've got them, we haven't gone round to this reform. We should have Bible departments. And people who teach Isaiah should also be teaching John's gospel. We've succumbed to the pressure of the Academy and have the specialists and so on, but the unity of scripture and understanding how the parts fit into that unity, that unity that has its climax in Christ and his work, that's our task as as biblical scholars, not just Old Testament scholars. And in following up on that, then what do you see as the role of the doctrine of scripture, particularly with regard to inerrancy and inspiration, the role between those two, that doctrine itself, doctrine of scripture, and doing faithful biblical theology and biblical studies? Well, it's fundamental. I take it, it's the assumption that underlies everything that you're doing is that this is God's word that you are studying. And he is the God of truth, and without that assumption, I don't know that I know where to go. Now it's right, like all of our assumptions, it's perfectly appropriate to examine them at any time, to bring them out and to check that they are consistent, that there is a consistency between what we believe about scripture and what scripture teaches about itself. But as far as the work of an Old Testament scholar is concerned, I don't keep going back and re-examining that, that's my starting point. Once I have acknowledged the character of these writings, these unique writings, to be received from the hand of God and to be heard, prayerfully, that God by His Spirit will breathe these words of fresh to me. That has to be absolutely basic to what we're doing. Do you want to press that question further? I'm very happy for you to do so. No, that was a fine response to which I would give a hearty amen. Yes. Maybe we could take a little different track. Dr. Woodhouse, share with us a little bit about the more theological college. We of course associate the names of Grand Goldsworthy Grounds, a good friend and teachers here regularly. He's not full-time on the faculty anymore, he's retired, but he comes down and teaches intensive courses here regularly. He was here a few weeks ago, actually. Yes, his work on biblical theology has been very influential on our approach here. He's helped, I'm not sure which of his books are most popular in the States, but he's got the three of them bound together, aren't they? In that trilogy. His first one was gospel and kingdom, which has had a huge influence in the English-speaking world, I think. And it's just such a wonderful, simple and straightforward presentation. I think of what I was trying to say a little bit earlier, of just the unity of Scripture and the fact that we read, this is another way of putting it that I've learned from Graham, we must be people who read the Old Testament as people who believe in Jesus. We believe that he is the word "become flesh" and we read the Old Testament with the eyes of faith. Faith in Christ. This is utterly intellectually respectable, and we must resist any suggestion that it's otherwise, because it's the truth. And I'm sorry, you were asking about more college. This is me getting past my bedtime, I start to wonder. Well, I was thinking one of your predecessors was Leon Morris, is that correct? And not here, Leon was at Ridley College in Melbourne. That's what you get for self, but talking to a great friend. I've got a great friend nonetheless. So sorry, but you've got some fine folk on the faculty at present at more. I was trying to think who is your New Testament? Who are your New Testament, gentlemen, guys? The best known New Testament man would be Peter Abraham. Yes, he'd done the word "commitry" in Colossians, the Pillar Commentary on Ephesians and his new Hebrews commentary as Japan. That's the one. Yeah. He's a very fine commentator, and probably best known over there. David Peterson is with us at the moment. He was the principal at Oak Hill until recently, but he's come back here. He's a graduate from the college here, and formerly on the staff, and he's back here. His Pillar Commentary on Acts has just appeared as well. New Testament, we also have Peter Bolt and Brian Rosner, their names you may not have come across, but they have come. I'm familiar with them. I should say I'm familiar with them. Yeah. New Testament, guys, you're a very wet in the Old Testament, who's done, I think, his most exciting work really was his Bible speech today, "Volume on Isaiah," but he's just completing. I think it's the Nikot series on Judges. He's just completed. Hasn't appeared yet, but that will be worth looking out for. I did mention before we actually started the recording that I have a good friend here at Westminster, who's an Australian. He's told me a little bit about Australia and its history and the general landscape, but I was curious to hear your thoughts about the health or general well-being of Reformed theology, even just evangelicalism in general in Australia. Well, brothers, it's a very different culture. I think it's very hard. It's funny, isn't it? We chat here to one another and feel we're in the same the same world, but culturally and certainly Christianly, the nations are so different. We find it difficult to comprehend the place of Christianity in American culture. It is such a secular society, ours. Aggressively secular, really. That doesn't mean the churches aren't healthy, they are, but church attendance is far far smaller than in the states. And has been historically. We were settled as a convict settlement. You were settled with the by the Purins. The difference is still with us, I think. It is rare. Actually, we have a prime minister at the moment who professes faith in Christ, but that has been very unusual in our history. Whereas it is almost compulsory for a president, I think, to express some sort of Christian faith in the US as I see it. It is an astonishing thing to hear a political leader do so in our country. So it is a different environment. Our universities do not have theology faculties at all. Any kind of Christian theology is not studied in the universities at all. I think that is a blessing because the university is usually just giving you liberalism. I don't mind it, but it is just a marker of the secularism of the society again. So, very different society is the gospel healthy. Yeah, I think so. Smaller. Of course, our overall population is so much smaller than yours. But our little college here has been growing in the students coming, which I think is a sign of health in the churches. We have about 300 undergraduate students now, which is very big for us. And we have a correspondence course that is around the world with about 7,000 students in it, in different places around the world at any one time. Many of those in third world situations, but that is one of our very exciting works that has just grown over the years. It is wonderful. But yeah, it has been a little bit of a snapshot of us. More college is the, we have been in existence for about 150 years. We are, by a long shot, the oldest seminary in Australia. And by a very large measure, the largest. So, theological study is a fairly small scale here compared to the states, but the country itself is small population wise. When I'm just thinking as you described the situation, and sometimes the prevalence of Christianity here, we have our secular parts too, but since there are so many different varieties, also of Christianity, it seems as though you, whenever you do evangelism or have a discussion with people, they have a sense of what you're all about and it may or may not be the case at all. You can find the, you can find the reformed variety, but you also find social gospel and Christian America and all sorts of different varieties of theology. So, it can be, each place has its own unique challenges. And some strange way that can be a blessing, but we definitely all pray for the advance of the gospel, and we're very, very excited about what you're doing. And we thank you so much for taking the time today. This has been a real joy. Yes. Well, thank you very much. I've so much enjoyed chatting with you. We won't keep you up past your bedtime any longer, but I'll let people know. You can visit more theological college on the internet 24 hours a day at more.edu.au. And they have a bunch of great information about the school. And you can, you can find out what they're doing. Maybe find out information about attending and looking into that new program that is growing so greatly. You can also visit us. Yeah, that would be fantastic. We can also visit us online at reformedforum.org. And there you can hear our other programs. You can download our archives and do a search and file. Look something up. You have a question. I'm sure we've treated your subject in some capacity over the last several years. And we'd love to hear from you too. You can email us at [email protected]. Or you can catch us on Twitter. It's all the rave for all of you younger people at reformedforum is our account. Yeah, Jim likes that. Jim, are you on Twitter? I'm not. You're too old for this. Yeah, I'm not. Well, you know when CNN and NPR have Twitter accounts that it's mainstream, at least over here. Anyway, if you if you can't think anything longer than 140 characters, we'll accommodate you. You can tweet us at reformedforum. We're there. Thank you so much for listening. We hope you join us again next time on Christ the Center.