Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created to match to match the truth of truth. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give a thumbs up. Let's get on the phone with Jerry from California. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up.

Let's get on the phone with Jerry from California. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up.

And if you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. If you liked the video, give it a thumbs up. And if you liked the video, send some love.

Thanks! Welcome back to the show. We have two open lines if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Let's get on the phone with Alberto from Georgia. Alberto, welcome, you're on the air. Alberto, are you there?

Hey buddy, I hit the button. Hello. Hey, alright. So what do you got man, what's up?

Yeah, how you doing man, slick? Yeah, I got a question. Does the Bible actually teach spiritual language? Because most Pentecostals, they like to speak in this tongue, but then they're talking about interpretive, so if everybody speaks Spanish, why don't you just say it? Because I don't speak some tongue, so if somebody has to interpret it, if everybody speaks in this congregation in Spanish, why don't you just say it, you know, one shot. Okay, so I'm not sure what your question is.

What was your question? Is the Bible going to speak heavily your spiritual language? Well, okay, well, I'm not sure what your question is, but there's different interpretations or understandings of what tongue is. One is that it is actually the language that was not Hebrew, and that it was speaking of other languages like Greek and Egyptian, and that the people were hearing the Gospel and the truth of God's word in other tongues.

So that's one of the possibilities. The other one is that it was, tongues is a spiritual movement of the Holy Spirit where a person speaks in a language he does not know, he or she does not know. When that occurs, it's supposed to be with interpretation. Then there's the view that if you speak with the tongues of angels, in 1 Corinthians 13.1, and so I believe that angels have a language of some sort, a way of communicating, and so I think that that is a language as well. I just don't know what it is.

I think that these are the three possibilities, from what I've seen, of them. Mostly the charismatics just go crazy, they go wacko, and they fail to understand biblical propriety, they fail to submit to biblical requirements on interpretation and in order, and so a lot of them just go crazy, get a lot of stuff wrong. Okay? Because I've been to Pentecostal churches, and there you go, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah.

And it's supposed to be defined themselves according to the Spirit, but I don't know any of this. Yeah, I did that once. I was working in a car, and I wasn't grounded right, and I got shocked by a coil. Yeah, that happened. Yeah, I remember that. Yeah, knocked me back about five feet.

But no, I've never spoken in tongues, so I believe it's possible. Yeah, I do. All right.

Yeah, it's happened. Thank you. All right, big man? All right, you too, take care. All right, God bless, buddy. Bye-bye.

All right. Hey, folks, we have three open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276.

I want to hear from you, give me a call. Let's get to Nelson from Bakersfield, California. Nelson, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt, God bless.

Hey, God bless. I wanted to just correct myself. Yesterday I called and I said that Cain had the name Demon and Dagger. It wasn't Demon, it's actually Possess and Dagger from what my friend was telling me.

That's the name, but it actually had the definition of that. I'm not sure. You don't recall, but that's okay.

So what's your question? Yeah. Well, my question is referring to, was it Romans 11, verse 25 and 26? Mm-hmm, about Israel. What do you, what do you, the question is, so what do you believe that, I mean, as scripture says it right there, does it tie up with the same chapter in verse 5?

With the same, well, okay, yeah, yeah. Well, there are different views about what's with Israel and the church and their relationship. One is the replacement theological position that says that the Christian church has completely replaced Israel. Then there's degrees of replacement, complete and total replacement or just mostly replaced and that Israel isn't really done yet completely.

There's the view that I hold that Israel is still a nation, of course, God is still faithful to them, of course, and that they will be raised up as a nation to work in the end times and there's going to be a mass conversion in Israel of believers and they're going to become evangelical. That's the position I hold to. Now, it doesn't mean I'm right, but I hold to that position and there are other positions, not like that, that are very good and others hold to within the Christian camp. Okay. Okay. All right, Matt. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right, Matt. Well, God bless. Okay.

All right. Want to give me a call, folks? We have four open lines, 877-207-2276. Let's get to Matt from King, North Carolina.

I don't think we've had anybody call from King. So welcome. You're on the air.

Oh, well, great. Thanks. Glad to be here. Thanks for all you do. Thank you.

Well, appreciate it. Listen to you and have a great day. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. All right. Now, listen to you whenever I get the chance. Oh, that's because you're smart and intelligent. Good for you.

Keep doing that. All right. So the question I had was about a call that you were just answering in regard to King. I think it was pronounced Ahasuerus in Ezra 4. Right. Is that spelled A-H-A-S-E-U-R-U-S?

U-E-R-U-S is what I see. Okay. Okay, well I'm not currently looking at it.

I am right now. That's right. Yeah, that's right.

Because the reason I was asking is I literally, I'm in a seminary at Southeastern Baptist right now, and I literally just took a midterm on this stuff right now. And it said that he and Xerxes are literally the same person, it's just one is the Persian royal name, which is Hasuerus, whereas Xerxes is not the royal Persian name, and so it's the same person. And so I told the guy on the other end of the line, I said, you can tell him, I don't have to be the one that tells him that he put you through anyway. Yeah. Yeah.

In fact, during the break, I started doing some research and I have some notes, I'm going to write an article whose king, whose Suras, I don't know how to pronounce it properly, but the Greeks called him Xerxes, which is a cool word, Xerxes, Xerxes. So yeah, that's what it is. And there's a relationship though, there's something back in my head with Nebuchadnezzar and the date that has to do with this out of Ezra or I think it's out of, or that Esther, I can't remember. Anyway, that's just a lot of stuff. That's the four. Yeah. Okay. Well, I don't, I'm definitely not an expert. I just took a midterm in it. So call me in about six weeks and I'll be an expert after the final, but right now I'm just halfway there. All right. So what, what degree are you going for?

Uh, MDiv, Master's of Divinity. Okay. So how many, how much Greek have you had?

Just curious because I want to reminisce a little bit. You've had Greek, right? None yet. None yet.

I wish I have, uh, but none yet. Are you in your first year then? Uh, second sort of, you know, COVID sort of breaks it up a little bit weirdly, but, uh, because when I started seminary, you went in swinging, uh, you know, they would throw you into the Greek pool and, uh, you know, you didn't know what direction to go.

And, uh, by the, and also in Hebrew, we were translating by the end of the first week. So, Oh wow. Yeah.

I think they, I think they've, uh, they've eased up a little bit cause they don't want to have people, so many people drop out because they were killing us with these languages. Yeah. Sounds like it. That's right. Those bodies piled up at the door. That's right.

It was horrible. All right, man. Okay. God bless, buddy. Good talking to you.

Yeah, we could. Hey folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Three open lines, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live.

Taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Everybody welcome back to the show. Welcome back to the show. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back. Welcome back to the show. Let's get on the line with Ty from North Carolina. Ty, welcome. You're on the air.

Ty. Hey, Matt. How you doing? I'm doing all right, man.

Hanging in there. What do you got, buddy? Yeah, so I've actually interacted with you a little bit on Clubhouse, but I wanted to ask you about Ty. I was actually on stage. Do you notice how quick I am?

My mind is so good. Did you notice that? Because now, sometimes people will call up and they have different names and stuff like that. So that's why. Yeah. You were just in the room.

Yeah. Weren't you just a little bit ago? I was. I decided to call in.

All right. I was like, I'm going to ask him a question. Yeah, I was on stage the other night when Jerry Hayes, you had that interaction and he kicked you off. I didn't act in time, so I dumped him and the other guy, but you were already down and you left. So sorry about that. Oh, you were in that room? Were you in that room? I was. I was actually. Okay. Sorry. It was actually my room and I just didn't act soon enough, so I apologize about that.

I've been, I wouldn't say ridiculed, but I've definitely got my fair share of advice. Well, let me ask you, are you, just curious, do you want me to jump here or anything? Are you Trinitarian or one of those? Yeah.

Which? I am absolutely 100% a Trinitarian and see, I had already condemned them before you had come up as preaching a false gospel. And you know, making, I told them that what they're doing is making God out to be a liar when they say that, the scripture says that the father was actually who is the son. And I used an argument that you had used a night before addressing someone else, you know, in John 6, I think it was 638, where he said, I came not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And it wouldn't make any sense because it would be basically saying, I came not to do my own will, but my own will, but it was just, it doesn't make any sense.

Right. I used it to expand on that because people are listening to that and it's very important because that's John, the pericope of John 6, 37 through 40, for those who don't know. And once people deny the Trinity, this is for the listeners. So I've used that. In fact, I've got some other stuff I'm going to be working on with that, with one of the guys, I think it was Hayes, where I actually asked him on the incarnation when Jesus was speaking, does he oscillate between human nature and divine nature speaking? And that was one of the things I think Hayes was talking about.

And I'm trying to get this with the other guys and they don't want to get into that level of discussion because it exposes their error a lot. But anyway, yeah, I love doing that. In fact, I'm thinking about opening up, not tonight, I got to teach Bible study, but opening up a room out there, is the Trinity true or false? And then have guys like you in there and others who can help me moderate and we'll just go to town on it. So as long as Vekl doesn't come in.

Man, that would be awesome. Yeah, because Vekl's a complete heretic, whack-a-loser, moron guy, which he's in the room listening. Yeah, I know Vekl. He's a great guy. Yeah, he is.

He's a molotov. So yes. Well, since we're talking about this, this is actually a more important topic than what my question was, could you expound a little bit upon how Jesus in his two natures, okay, and I hear this said a lot, and I can't remember which creed it comes from, that he's operating from a human mind and a divine mind at the same time. And I had talked to you about this a couple of months ago, but I didn't quite understand it, where you were saying that there's actually, and I want to word this right, because I don't want to misrepresent you at all, but you said it was like there's some commentators who said that he almost has like a third mind, which is one mind of two natures, something along those lines. No, it has to do with what's called diselitism and the error of monothelitism. So thileo is the Greek word to will, to have a will, to desire, to want, to will, okay. And so by logical necessity, if we have three persons in the Godhead, then the second person has to have self-awareness, be able to think and have a will. Well, the human nature also has to have a will, otherwise it's not human.

That's part of what it means to be human. So Jesus has two natures. Logically this means two wills, the will in the divine nature, the will in the human nature. This is called dithyletism.

And it works with hypostatic union, and I'll come back to it and explain. But there's an error called monothelitism, which teaches that there's only one will where the two natures are basically combined. Now this is monophysitism, which it says that the divine nature and the human nature became a third new thing, the God-man nature, it's a combo nature. And in that there'd be only one will, but that's wrong. Because then Jesus is neither divine nor human, but a third new thing.

And that's a very serious problem, gets a lot of issues with that. So what we say in this issue of dithyletism, with the two wills with each nature, Jesus, as I'll ask these oneness people, I'll say, was Jesus a person? When he was walking on the earth, was he a person? They have to say yes.

Now sometimes they want to say no, because they know as soon as they say yes, he's a person that I'm going to jump all over him, because I am. Because Jesus was a person, and he still is a person. He's one person, he's not two persons. And that's called Nestorianism, where there are two persons in the one body of Christ. Nestorianism, and that's a heresy. Because then we have problems with the incarnation, which nature died on the cross, and a denial of what's called the communicatia radiomatum, where the attributes of both nature are ascribed to the single person. So the orthodox doctrine is the hypostatic union, that in the one person of Christ are two distinct natures, but the two wills manifest and appear as one. They're manifested in one person, and with one will. Therefore the one person will say, I am thirsty, and I am with you always.

And he says, I want you to come to me. I came down from heaven to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. He's talking as a person. Now oneness people have problems with this, because I went into it.

That's what's going on there. So the hypostatic union is the correct doctrine. One person has one will, but inside are two natures, and they are attributed to the one person with one will. How that works, I don't know, but that's the biblical revelation. Okay, that's a very good answer.

So let me ask you this, based on that then, okay? You would agree that Jesus is now in his glorified state, but he retains his human nature. He still has the marks of the nails in his hand, like his wrist, not his hands. I'm sorry, his wrist, yeah. Because a lot of people don't know, it says hands in the Bible, but actually it's his wrist because in the Greek they didn't have a word for wrist, and the wrist was considered part of the hand of that movement, the bending area, and that's where the nails was.

So it was in his wrist, not his palms, but it's a trivial point, but go ahead. Well, I think it's a good point, but now that he's in his glorified state, does he still have where he has two wills, does that still take place in his glorified state? He still has two wills. He forever will be in the state called the hypostatic union, forever.

Okay, that was a question I had. Now think about this also, because it says in 1 Timothy 2.5 that there's one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus. Now this is written after his ascension into heaven, in Colossians 2.9, for in him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form.

That's also written after the ascension. So it's stated that Jesus is in bodily form, and he's a man. Furthermore, in order to be a high priest, you have to be a man. And Jesus is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, who lives forever to make intercession for us, Hebrews 6-20 and Hebrews 7-25. So if he's not a man right now, we don't have a high priest. If we don't have a high priest, we're in trouble.

So the physical resurrection of Christ demonstrates the proof that what Jesus said and did was correct, but it also is a manifestation of the continuing work of the intercession that Christ will be doing on our behalf forever before God the Father. Okay? Amen.

Amen, brother. Well, let me ask you this then. I don't want to take up the whole call, so you can boot me off any time you want to.

I'm fine with that. But in Revelation 1, where it says that God, and I'm driving so I can't read it exactly, but it's worded where the revelation was given to him, to Jesus. And so, I don't know, does that mean, why would Jesus, if he's omniscient, need to receive a revelation from the Father?

I hope I don't say that bad, because I know that's used by heretics. No, it's a good question. It's a very good question.

In fact, it's such a good question that I'm putting it in my notes for an article to write, and there's a break coming up, because there's the music. But you hold on, and we'll see if you tackle winging back, okay? We'll hold on, buddy. We'll be right back, folks.

Sure. After these messages, we have 1-877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, welcome back to the show, everybody, the last segment of the day. And I just love to bring all the teaching and Bible studies tonight, going through Philippians 2, the last half of it, and maybe getting into Philippians 3 tonight. I'll be putting the link up on Facebook later, Karm Facebook, it'll be up there, and just FYI. All right, so Ty, are you still there? I am still here, man, absolutely. All right. Well, the break was actually kind of convenient, and so what I did was I focused on some possible explanations for it, and I came up with four off the top of my head.

One I had helped with, I looked at a commentary, gave me a clue on something, and so I reworded it and added something. But it wasn't possible, we're talking about logic possibility here, is that it was given to Jesus before his ascension, and that had ramifications to it. Not that that is the case, but the text does not require that it was given to him after his ascension, though I think it's really what the implication is. Number two is possible that the result of Jesus being a man and in that lesser position, that humbled state, there could be something related to that, and that's an idea too. I'm not particularly satisfied with that. All that the designation of the greatness of Jesus in relation to God, that God gave it to him, and I think there's truth in that.

But here's the one I think really works. It is a way of showing the continuing work of Jesus as mediator. The Father reveals himself through the Son, and that in Jesus' mediatorship work, that the Father gave the revelation to him, who then mediated it, gave it to John, and that's what I think is going on there. That's the best explanation I've ever heard, truthfully, that really is, that makes perfect sense. Okay.

Yeah, I think that last one is the better one. And the statement I read in the commentary says the Father reveals himself and his will in and by his Son. I went, you know, that's true, but that's because he's the mediator. And then I go to Matthew 11, 27, no one knows the Father to the Son and to whom the Son wills to reveal him.

Jesus is that mediator, 1 Timothy 2, 5, and I think that's what's going on, is his office as mediator. And I think that's what's happening, that's why. Okay? Okay, man. Thank you. All right, man. God bless, buddy. Appreciate it. We'll be right back on the club at the same time.

All right. All right, that next longest waiting person is, let's see, Ryan from Pennsylvania. Ryan, welcome, you're on the air. Thank you, Matt. And I want to thank you again for your invitation to call anytime.

I have kind of a curious little thing that I've been dabbling in for probably about three decades. Back when Walter Martin was alive, he made mention of Revelation 22, verse 16, and the verse reads, I, Jesus, have sent mine angels to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and offspring of David and the bright and morning star. According to Walter Martin, and like I say, I've been reading commentaries on it and doing my own translation of it and exegesis of it over the years. Because of what he was saying, this is showing that the churches are still on the earth. And most of the commentaries, I think in a direct translation, that this is a little bit ambiguous.

I'm not sure if it is or not. But if that is indeed the case, that after everything that has gone on through the first 21 chapters, the church is still on the earth, it seems to me any sort of prenatal rapture idea is completely destroyed by this. Hmm. You're going to think about that. Yeah, because obviously they're not raptured away if they're still on the earth after everything has happened.

Yeah, I would agree. And I believe the rapture is concomitant with the arrival of the second coming of Christ and the new heavens and new earth, and that the wicked are taken first. But that's another thing. The prophets have sent my angel to testify to these things for the churches. For the churches. If it's the seven churches, that's interesting. I've actually been to the geographical locations of those seven churches, but they're not churches. They're not there as churches.

And I'm the root and the descendant of David. So Walter Martin, who I studied under for two years, what a privilege that was, he said that the seven churches of Revelation were still there, still around? No no, not the seven churches, but the Church of Christ, the body of believers that make up the church on the earth, are still on the earth. Not the seven churches that made reference in the beginning of this. You know, this is after everything that has happened with all the judgments and everything else, that the Church of Christ, the body of Christ, is still on the earth at this point in Revelation chapter 22. And like you say, yeah, and like you say, I've been dabbling at it for about three decades, and looking at different commentaries, and I did not know if you would run across this or not, but like you say, it seems to me that if that is indeed the case, and like you say, in my translating it and exegeting it, I find it to be ambiguous as to whether or not, you know, he's talking about testifying these things to the churches, but whether or not these churches are still on the earth or not, was not something that was definitive, and did not know if you'd ever run across anything like that. No I haven't, that's interesting, I've never even seen that like that, or had anybody ask me in that relationship to it. So yeah, it's worth studying, I made some notes on it.

It's interesting, because a lot of times the, after Revelation 4 I think it is, the pre-tribbers will say that the church is no longer mentioned, and I disagree with that, that's the 24 elders I believe is the church, but here it says for the churches, to these things, for the churches, what he means, yeah, there's different ways of understanding it, it could be that he's talking about the seven churches at that time, to testify these things for the churches, and so, you know, it's worth looking at, to check it out and see. But like you say, it was something I've been curious about for a long time and thought I would ask you. Again, thank you for inviting me to call anytime. Sure, yeah, thanks a lot Ryan, appreciate it. Interesting stuff. Alright.

Huh, interesting. Alright, let's get to Patrick from Charlotte, North Carolina, Patrick, welcome, you're on the air. Hey Matt, it's me, Patrick, I called last night, but now I have a different question about women pastors. Okay. In Romans 16, 3 to 5, Paul talks about Priscilla and Aquila, and in verse 5, Paul says, greet also the church that meets at their home, or house, do they have church at their house, Priscilla and Aquila? Yeah, that's what it says. Uh huh. And then would that mean Priscilla could have been a pastor? No. No. No, but that they met at her, at the house.

Huh? Yeah, but Priscilla and Aquila, they taught Apollos in Acts 18, so they actually, she was a teacher. It doesn't, the women cannot be pastors and elders in the church. It does not mean women can't be teachers. You know, when I was in seminary, we had a woman come in and do some teaching, no problem at all. It's not to say women can't teach any men, any time, any way. Or not to be in the position of authority spiritually over men in the church. That's what the Bible teaches, not to be in that place. You could have a woman who's very knowledgeable, and if I knew a woman who was very knowledgeable in a particular theological area, knew more than me, I'd say, hey, teach me, what is this?

Explain me some questions. I wouldn't have any problem with that, it's no big deal. But it doesn't mean that she's a pastor. Well, if she had church at her house, that means she was associated with being in a pastor's position. No, it means they had church at the house. Right.

That's what it means. Church at the house. Well, who was the pastor? It doesn't say who the pastor was. Well, what? Okay, I'm going to tell you this one more time, okay?

It just says that they were at the house, she happened to be there at the house, doesn't mean she's a pastor, and the Bible says pastors are to be elders who are male, the man of one wife, okay? So she couldn't have been that, all right? Okay, I guess, all right. All right.

Okay, we'll move along then. Let's get to Mike from Des Moines, Iowa. Hey, Mike, welcome.

You're on the air. Matt, what's up? Love the show, bud. Hey, glad you appreciate it.

What's up, buddy? Revelation 11, seven, talking about the two witnesses, does this give more, is this something that you would use to say that this is the millennial kingdom now? I know that's one of your thought processes, so talk about the beast that comes up in the abyss there, the two witnesses that's usually associated with the seven year tribulation. Yeah, I affirm the seven year tribulation period. I think it's definitely a reality it's going to happen, no problem. But this doesn't negate anything or support anything other than to say the two witnesses are going to be there, and I think it's going to happen during the seven year tribulation period. I do believe for a seven year tribulation period. And if Daniel- I don't think you understood, I don't think you understood what I'm trying to say, Matt. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Try it again, then. Specifically in Revelation 11, seven, talks about the witness, right after they talk about witnesses that are killed and come back, or they're killed, it says that they're killed by the beast that fled out from the abyss. Now, when it talks about the millennial kingdom, it says that Satan is bound and thrown into the abyss. Would this be something that you would look at as supporting promillennialism as the millennial kingdom now, and that the rapture, or not the rapture, but the tribulation would happen after the millennial, followed by the rapture?

Right. Because it says in Revelation 20, the thousand years is in a figurative context, and that he's bound not to deceive the nations anymore. Jesus said that Satan was already bound in Matthew 12, when he was casting out demons. So what some of the amillennialists will hold to is the idea that the thousand years is figurative, because that's how it's used, and that at the beginning of that time, he was bound, which is what Jesus said was the case, and that he'll be let loose in order to make war, not only with the two witnesses, but also to help to see the nations so that they come to war with each other. So some amillennialists stand on the position that he has been released, and that this is why we're having the problems we're having in the world now.

So it would support amillennialism. Perfect. Okay.

Yeah. Thank you, Matt. All right, man. Sorry I didn't get you the first time, I understand, but good stuff. All right. No, you're good. All right. Thanks a lot, man.

God bless. All right. Let's get to the last caller, Nate from California. Nate, we lost you. And there you go.

Okay. Since we've got about one minute left in the show. A lot of people are thinking, no, it's a literal thousand years. Well, maybe it is, and stuff, but go to Revelation 20 and read, I saw an angel come down from heaven. I think that's literal. Holding the key of the abyss, that's figurative. And a great chain in his hand, that's figurative. Laid hold of the dragon, that's figurative. The serpent of old, that's literal. Who is the devil and Satan, that's literal.

And bowed him for a thousand years. So is it literal or figurative? No, just assume that it's literal.

Don't assume it's not. But look at the text to see what is warranted by the context. Furthermore, when you do a study on thousand years, just the phrase, thousand years.

One day is but a thousand years, a thousand years, but a day, it's a figurative usage. And so when you look at stuff like that, you go, okay, you know, maybe. And that's just the point.

That's all I'm trying to make out of that. And for those who want to know where Satan was bound, when Jesus said he was already bound, Matthew chapter 12, starting at verse 22, 22 through 32, Matthew 12, Jesus is casting out demons. They said, hey, you're doing it by the power of the evil one. He said, nope, you got to bind him first in order to do it.

And he's binding. He said so. Very interesting stuff. There you go.

Hope that makes it. Thank you. May the Lord bless you and by his grace, ladies and gentlemen, we'll be back on there tomorrow and we'll talk to you then. Have a good evening. We'll see you next time, bye.