Consequences Of The Suffering Of Christ - Part 1
1 Peter 3:17-22 · Bob Eckel · Jul 5, 2020
1 & 2 Peter (2020-21), No. 24
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/49261919237522

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

We're going to be looking at 1 Peter 3, 18 to 22, and I'm going to take my own Bible here and read these verses from there. And ultimately we'll be doing part one today and part two next week. I should really start with verse 17, for it says, for it is better if the will of God be so that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil doing. So that kind of, is a prelude to where we're going in the next five years.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit. By whom also he went and preached under the spirits in prison, who at one time were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was preparing. in which few that by eight souls were saved by water. The like figure unto which even baptism doth also now save us, now the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. who has gone into heaven and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. The reason I stumble a little bit, I've got so many things written in my Bible that I can't read some of the words.

Anyway, you can accept that for whatever it's worth. Okay, let's go ahead and begin then with verse 18 today. For Christ also suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring you to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit.

And that's the New King James Version. For some reason, I think many versions sell short this section. So what I've done is, in its original language, turned to the Interlinear Greek. So let's look at this, and there's going to be some differences that I want you to pick up on.

Because indeed Christ once concerning sins died. Notice the difference between the King James and the Interlunar Greek. A righteous man on behalf of unrighteous ones, in order that you he might bring to God on the one hand in flesh, quicken on the other spirit. So that's the original Greek language translated into English. notice the sentence structure would not be typically the way we would read a translation from another language.

So let's begin where I did this morning. Notice how this verse follows the theme of verse 17. Somebody tell me what verse 17 says and how that relates to what we're studying today. It talks about the just for the unjust and then 17 talks about doing right You suffer for doing right.

So there's a connection there, it seems like. Good, Roger. That's exactly what I was hoping someone would say. So, you know, as believers, we have that oneness in Christ Jesus as we're created anew in Him and His life in us is His life in us. And ultimately this being, you know, put in a position of suffering for just do is really kind of what our Savior went through. 2,000 years ago. So I think the connection there is pretty straightforward.

Although the Bible sectionally divides this into a separate area. Is the distinction of suffer versus die important between these two versions of the New Testament? King James, I'm not sure what the New American Standard or Well, Christ had to die. We know that. Suffering kind of doesn't make it as crystal clear. Christ had to die to make the payment for our sins.

But suffering relates better to verse 17, perhaps. Right. Okay. Other thoughts here? In the New American Standard, it's for Christ died. for sin is right. But it looks at also suffered. And I might have my computer shut down. So I might have missed that. So there's two there's suffering one versions has suffered and one versions has died.

What do you make of that difference, Andrew? Is that important? I think it may be subtle, but I think there is importance here. And I think Roger, you know, kind of touched on that, right? It's probably important to look. I didn't look at the original, what the word for died or suffered is. So that's probably pretty important too. Right. I think, you know, both verses can capably be interpreted to look at the cross for everything it was worth, for sure.

But suffered unto death or died are two different things. You can suffer without dying. Phil's going through that right now in terms of the pain he's going through. So anyway, I think it may be subtle, but I think it's important because the prescription, and we'll come to this a little bit later this morning, the prescription for Christ was to die.

So I kind of like the interlinear Greek here in that regard. Let's continue. So how many times did Christ suffer or die for sins? Once. Wow. This is Christianity 101, everyone, so bear with me here a little bit. But look, I mean, we got to take home everything that the Lord has for us here.

And how many people, for some reason, don't look at this one death and resurrection as sufficient? But Hebrews tells it what it was. Not that he should offer himself often. And by the way, comparison to Jewish tradition or even some of the churches we call Catholic today, as the high priest enters the most holy place every year with blood of another, he then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world.

But now once at the end of the ages, he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And notice sin is without a modifier. We're talking about sins, but we're also talking about here sin. Once, once and for all, there's no more crucifixion. There's no more sins to be paid for. There's no more sin that has been put away. You know, how is that viewed often by non-believers or even perhaps mainline church who have kind of gone down a rabbit trail here a little bit? You mean maybe over there in Los Angeles?

Anyway, your thoughts about this. I mean, think about the way many believers approach the crucifixion. As if their ongoing sin, that that results from the sin nature, the flesh that we all have with us till we're out of this fleshly, earthly body. Think about the continuing, falling short of the glory of what was accomplished on each and everyone's behalf at the cross. The idea that their sins, they feel lack of confidence that their wrongdoings of yesterday or even this morning have been adequately taken care of. I mean, this once and for all is such a basic premise of Christian faith and gives you what? It gives you security, doesn't it? There's no more sacrifice for sins or sin. It's been done once and for all.

I don't know if this is the right thing to say, but I'm going to say it. When you have Christ on the cross as the symbol of Christianity, what have you left out? Resurrection. We're going to come to that. But I'm thinking of that here. He died once. When you leave him on the cross, it's like he's always dying.

That's right. And those faiths, if you will, that have him on the cross still stop way short, don't they Roy? Yeah. Yeah. Any other thoughts about dying once and once and for all? Isn't that a security blanket for all of us? He didn't have to go year by year or day by day to pay for our sins. Yeah. Every year. with blood of another. Yeah. All right.

Let's continue. And for whose sins? Again, Christianity 101. What does the verse say? It's ours. Well, it's not only ours. The people on this call or this Zoom Sunday school class this morning, and he himself It's the propitiation or adequate payment for our sins and not for ours only, our first peer Sunday school class at Holly Hills Bible Church, but also for the whole world.

What does that really have in mind for a saved world, the church, and also for the unsaved world? Well, Bob, it ought to make our message to the unsaved that God is gracious to you already. You didn't have to do anything. He paid for your sins and he's asking you to believe that he did, to trust in that. And that, so that, it kind of changes, you know, knowing that fact and believing that fact helps you to be able to communicate a more accurate view of where the unbeliever is. And it ought to be encouraging to him because he's thinking he has to work up some, do some works to pay for his sins, but it's already been done. Okay, good point.

Roger, other thoughts about this? Someone was speaking. How great his sacrifice was compared to the earthly sacrifices that prefigured it. It was a complete offering. Infinite in duration and in quality and in quantity. It was really something. You know, it's really humbling to think about this as you look at the world around us and we're looking at kind of what's going on, not only with the stress and strain of the pandemic, but also other issues that have arisen in the last month or two. You know, you look at the behavior of the human citizen around the world and you say, gee, could Christ have really paid for all that shortcomings, falling short of God's glory that we call sins? And the answer is yes. And I think Roger alluded to the fact that, you know, it's not only our own sins, but it's everyone's.

Time eternal, gone back to Adam all the way to whenever. up until the time where the great judgment seat will ensue. All right, who are the just or the righteous and the unjust? The just are the believers and the unjust are the non-believers. Okay, we are made just, made righteous, but the just and the unjust really relate to all of us, doesn't it? I mean, it really, we're all unjust and brought to that position, David, of righteousness because of his great work.

Right. Why did he have to suffer, or better yet, die according to the interlinear Greek? Again, Christianity 101 at the beginning, it's going to get into graduate school work very soon here. Thank you, Roger. Well, this this is, again, very Hebrew 915 is just wrong. Yeah.

And for this reason, he, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the mediator of the new covenant by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant that those who are called may receive the promise of the internal inheritance, if you will, the eternal or everlasting covenant, so-called. Now, question for the class. What was the first covenant? If you look at the Bible or a commentary, many of them for the covenants, there are about seven or eight different covenants that are listed. I'm sorry, who spoke up? Andrew. Andrew. Go ahead, Andrew. It's the law.

Okay, that certainly fits within there, the covenant to Israel, if you would. I'm wondering about the covenant that God made with Adam and Eve, that one would come. Okay. That's considered the first covenant if you like to list them in order. The Noahic covenant, the Davidic covenant, it goes on and on and on.

But I really like what Jameson, Fawcett, and Brown said here. And I think they really pinpointed this. The first testament, also called covenant, thus includes the whole period from Adam to Christ, and not merely that of the covenant with Israel. Andrew, you're fine, but it goes beyond that according to Jameson, Fawcett, and Brown, which was a concentrated representation of the covenant made with, or the first testament given to, mankind by sacrifice down from the fall to redemption.

Isn't that a very good assumption? of what all these various covenants really stood for. It's ultimately basically keeping the law. I mean, if you summarize it very quickly, the law was not only written to Israel as a nation, but it preceded it and extended up until the cross. So you could disagree with this, but I really like this. The first covenant includes all of the above.

Everything that saves but grace. Anybody want to take this on or have other perspectives of the First Covenant? So back to the question, why did he have to die? Because this is the only sufficient payment for the redemption of transgressions or sins that could never be taken care of by the First Covenant, represented again by J, F, and B. Okay, let's go ahead and move on. Being put to death in the flesh. Notice the tense of the verb. Passive tense. So, what do you make of that? Did Christ not go to the cross voluntarily? He did go voluntarily. He did go voluntarily. Oops. You got a little echo there, Roger, at least I'm hearing it.

Whose prescription was this? Where was this eternal covenant ultimately transacted and by whose power? In the garden we have Christ's word's word and not my will, but thine be done. And, you know, from a human perspective, He went through that kind of a suffering.

Okay, but being put to death in the flesh, why do you think that's in the passive tense, Roy? It's because not just God was involved, but Satan was involved, man was involved, everyone was involved in death. I like that. Ultimately, when the spirit was removed and his body was crucified to the cross, that suffering and death was prescribed.

And that ultimately was an incredible act of obedience on his part. God was in control. Satan was, I mean, Christ had no control over his destiny once he began to die for each and every sin, once and for all. This is being enacted upon him by all the powers of heavenly places and evil places. One place it actually says he learned obedience unto death. Well, that fits well, doesn't it? Yeah. All right. On to slide three.

Why? Well, The verse says it, the reason he was put to death, passive tense, put to death, that he might bring us, meaning the body, to Christ. Why do you make the subjunctive tense here? Let's go back and look at that again. For Christ also suffered once for sins that just for the unjust, that he might bring you to God.

Subjunctive tense. What's the subjective tense indicate? The verb might. It's potential, but here the potential did not exist until he did it. OK. He could not introduce us until he did this. But what also does once the death occurred, Roy, what does the subjunctive tense indicate? he might bring us to God. And he might not, right? I mean, he calls all men and women to himself, does he not? Yes. But the subjective tense is not a certainty.

It may occur, it may not occur. And we can get into this whole active faith on the believer's part that brings him to salvation. But nevertheless, I think he might bring us to God if, in fact, we, by faith, enter into that relationship. I was looking at it from the standpoint of there was no possibility until he died for us.

That could be also an application, Roy. Yes. I kind of like what Roy was saying there. I'm using a different microphone this time. So that's good. You're coming across. OK. In other words, what Ryan, you are, you know, ultimately accepting that is the idea that until he died, he could not. Right. He could not. That's sort of the way I take it. Yeah.

But that could be equally as applicable, if not more so. But also, I think, you know, once he's died, you know, it doesn't bring us all to God, does it? He might bring some and might not bring others, and that's by our response in faith. It has the potential to bring all men, though.

There you go. No question about that. All right, Macaulay, the word being, or bring, I'm sorry, is prosago in the Greek, a technical term for one who has gained audience at court for another. So in a sense, Roy, Roger, that fits a little bit more with your interpretation about might bring. It gives him an opportunity to bring.

Right. Right. And before we were excluded. He couldn't do it before. OK. Other thoughts here. For through him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father and the Spirit is mentioned also in verse 18 as the mechanism by which this ensued. Are you going to talk about this being in a courtroom situation maybe? I wasn't. Well, just the thought of that word there, that bring us, it's a formal word used by men who take somebody who isn't worthy to come and see the king to be taken by somebody who is worthy to do it. And he presents us, here, here's somebody you need to see, king, and introduces us to them. Okay, other comments here? Not saying that very well, but it's a special thing to do that. That thought reminds me of, you know, he's our advocate, I mean, in a way, bringing us, you know, intercession type, yeah. Yeah. All right, it gives us access, does it not? Right. Did we come on our own, Barrett, or on his? All right, good.

What essential component of this verse makes our faith complete? And without this, our Christianity is of no value. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, or died for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by or in the Spirit. Or by Spirit.

You're talking about being made alive in the Spirit? Is that kind of your focus? Yeah, I think that's where we're going, Roger. So the Greek term is quicken. also of the passive tense and is to be made alive. I mean, this was not a proactive role of the Lord Jesus Christ after his death. His being made alive was passive and carried out by the Holy Spirit or the actually made alive. We're going to come back to that in a second in terms of whether this is the Holy Spirit or his spirit was made alive. But anyway, this is an act of God that ultimately resulted in the resurrection.

And notice how we can personalize this. Turning to Romans, Paul says, but if the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you or in us, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his spirit who dwells in you.

A nice application that relates to this verse in first Peter. the spirit need to be capitalized? What's the thought here? A spirit is capitalized typically in scripture it has a preceding the spirit and its capitalization relates to the Holy Spirit specifically but some versions apparently the original translation had spirit and small case and it was not capitalized.

So Wiest has asked a question many other commentators has asked. Is this the human spirit that made Christ alive or the Holy Spirit that was removed at the time of his crucifixion? What are your thoughts about this? I believe it was his human spirit Okay, Roy has made a case for the human spirit. Would others like to comment? Now we're moving into graduate course Christianity.

The reason I use for that, Bob, is that there's no article here. Correct. And it's the quality of him that was made alive that is called the spirit. What makes it a little confusing is, like, the New American Standard has a definite article in their text, but I gather it's not in the original.

Yeah, thanks. Well, if you go back, sorry to do this, but it just takes a second to do it. If you go back to the verse in the Interlunar Greek, it says, on the one hand in flesh, quickened on the other spirit. No article in the Interlunar Greek. That's right. I think that's pretty important. Yeah. Okay, so back to the issue.

We're dealing with the work of the Holy Spirit, which we clearly could condone, I think, knowing the power of the Holy Spirit. Or is this the spirit of life? And then one could question, what was the spirit of human life in the Lord Jesus Christ? I mean, the human spirit is what each and every one of us has. There's nothing holy about that human spirit, or perhaps nothing but innocence.

But nevertheless, that's maybe what we're talking about. And as we've already commented on and gone back to the ILG, there's no article before spirit. And that would tend to make one accept that this is the human spirit and not the power of the Holy Spirit.

Constable, By the way, Constable is quite detailed and quite good on this section of scripture. And I'm sure we'll hear more from him next week. But the statement that Christ was made alive in the spirit therefore means simply that he was raised from the dead, not as a spirit, but bodily as resurrection always is in the New Testament and in a sphere in which the spirit and power of God are displayed. without hindrance or human limitation. Now notice that Constable capitalizes Spirit, so that gives you a flavor of what his interpretation is, that perhaps the article is needed before Spirit to interpret this correctly.

Let's move on. The point I want to make here is his being made alive, the resurrection is essential and makes our faith and testimony real. If Christ is still on the cross and was never resurrected, I think it makes scripture vain and totally unvaluable. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is absolutely the backbone and basis of our faith. And all the Bible is paled if the resurrection is not true. And we're going to see in Corinthians that Paul's going to make a big deal about that. He's going to, you know, spend quite a few verses saying your faith is in vain if Christ was not resurrected. You know, Roger, and as we try to share the Lord Jesus Christ with the unsaved of the world, one thing that comes up is the historical document that we rely upon. The Bible is not only a foundation of our faith, but also the historical basis of it. So the question always comes up, who is Jesus Christ?

And they'll say, well, a great prophet or a teacher and all these kinds of things. And then I say, was he crucified on the cross? And most importantly, was he made alive again? Or was he resurrected from the dead? And there's a big canyon before you sharing the Lord Jesus Christ and an unbeliever coming to any kind of realization.

The resurrection is everything. And that's the basis of our faith. Amen. All right. So Christmas is wonderful as a tradition, and we, you know, celebrate the incarnation and all that it's about. But Easter Sunday, so-called, or Resurrection Sunday, is really, as believers, what we should celebrate. All right. That was an opinion here. OK. First Corinthians 15. Roger, you alluded to this.

Verse 22, for us, and Adam all die. But even so, in Christ, all should be, look at the term, be made alive. So notice, God makes us alive. We must have an action to respond by faith. But it's his resurrection by which we are made alive and our belief in that truth and what he did.

Well, I like to point out to people sometimes that and showing them that their need for a Savior is that Christ considered the unbeliever as dead, and he calls them dead men. In several passages, let the dead bury the dead. That's a pretty condemning statement, talking to unbelievers, but if they can get a hold of that and see that they're dead, separated from God, you know, that's the beginning of hopefully, you know, coming to faith in Christ.

But if they don't see themselves, they see themselves as okay, then I'm sure many times you've seen the same thing. You don't get very far. All right, good. Macaulay, following the cry of Matthew 27, 46, we're told Christ offered another prayer found in Hebrews 5, 7.

It was directed to God, who is able to save him from death. The word from is very important. It is a preposition ek and means out of. The prayer was not to be saved from dying, but rather to be saved out of death. A prayer for resurrection. 1 Peter 3.18 tells us this was answered and that he was made alive in the spirit. Nice commentator to turn to there.

Any other thoughts about verse 18, which is pact of Christianity 101? All right, now, the interesting challenge I felt before me yesterday was, do we take on 19 and rest there or do we take on 20 this week? And my decision, and you'll have to acknowledge it, of course, and hopefully respect it, is that we're going to drill down on verse 19. And we're going to have to be patient to wait for some of the conclusive statements of verse 20 next week. Verse 19. Sounds good.

By whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison. I also turned to the ILG here, in which indeed to the in prison spirits going, he proclaimed. Notice preached versus proclaimed. OK. However you interpret spirit, meaning is this the Holy Spirit or the human spirit that's been restored? This is by whom Christ was led to preach or proclaim in prison. OK, the spirit is what led him.

Why is he went in the passive voice, but preached or proclaimed in the active voice? What are your thoughts about that? Remember, these are spirits preaching to the spirits in prison. He went in the passive voice. This is not an active tense, a proactive verb, but it's a passive verb, but preached in the active voice or proclaimed.

It's a picture of God's plan in motion. for the acts that occurred during that critical moment in history from God's perspective to take our Savior and allow Him to announce something in a realm that only His Spirit could enter. That's the way I look at that because it's the actual Greek word there, the preposition is neuter, spirit. And the passive voice means that this was part of the plan that happened to him. Yes. And that the preaching would be active, would be a durative perspective of something that's real.

That this is not a... I don't know how to say this, but it's a duration thing. that occurred in time from God's perspective. All right. I think that that approaches this, Roy, I think next week when we find out, you know, what's going on and the timing of this, we'll perhaps understand this a little bit better. But the Spirit is leading him and this, you know, by the way, the Spirit leads us too. This is, again, the question comes up, is this human or the Holy Spirit? But nevertheless, he's being led but it's he who did the preaching or proclaiming.

What prison is this? It depends on your interpretation. Alcatraz, this is not okay. Constable, it's clear that our Lord as the man Christ Jesus went to the place of the departed dead called in the Old Testament Sheol and the New Testament Hel. The word Hel being translated of the Greek word Hades.

So what do we make of that? Yeah, I think the easiest way to look at this is he announced that it's done. Right. This is history, right? He wasn't preaching salvation. I think it's key. Okay, good, Roger. I think you're moving in the right direction here. Because they're already captive. Their fate is sealed. So we're going to find out who these spirits are in a second, at least discuss that. But what do you think he's proclaiming then if he's not preaching the gospel? I think Roy kind of hit on it. It's done.

And Ephesians gives us a hint of this too. Paul acknowledged this descent, if you will. Now this he ascended, but what does he mean that he also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? So this is just not Peter's perspective. Scripture is true and validated by other indications that this event actually took place. One of the things that's really dangerous here is to presume you know the answer to that question. We don't know what he proclaimed, but we know he did it. That's what we know.

So if we go to the original text again, so first is actually not in the present scripture as we have it in the New King James or the ILG. So it says he first went into the depths, and that is not present in the original text, no matter what translation you look at. So Robertson has a thought that I'd share with you.

The language is plain enough, except that it does not make it clear whether Jesus did the preaching to spirits in prison at the time or to people whose spirits are now in prison, the point of doubt already discussed. So we don't really have a clear understanding. of, you know, exactly to whom and exactly what was proclaimed or preached. So one of the mysteries that ultimately we can have resolved once we're in heavenly places. Importantly, who are these spirits?

The Greek term is pneuma, which, by the way, can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. So here's Strong's interpretation. A current air, for instance, of breath, or blast or a breeze, by analogy or figuratively a spirit, human as possible, the rational soul, by implication, vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or superhuman, an angel, demon, or god, Christ Spirit, the Holy Spirit, ghost, life, spirit, mind. I mean, pick whatever one you want. And if you look at various places in scripture, and this term is used multiple, multiple times, you have to, in context, interpret pneuma correctly.

Constable, the word pneuma is used as a designation of just two classes of free moral agents in the New Testament. of angels, gives two verses in Hebrews, and of demons, and there the Synoptic Gospels are referenced. There are just two prisons in the unseen world where evil spirits are confined, Tartarus, mentioned in more detail in 2 Peter, and hell, Tartarosis, where fallen angels are kept and the bottomless pit, which is in detail alluded to and mentioned in Revelation 9, 1 through 12. Interestingly enough, there's only one example that ultimately the word spirits relates to humans, and that's in Hebrews chapter 12, 23. To the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn, who are registered in heaven, to God the judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect. So I think when I've gone into this great detail with two commentators and their thoughts on this is to indicate pneuma can be interpreted in a multiplicity of ways, but yet typically used for humans, it's ultimately not common.

And I'm giving you the Hebrew verse as one possible consideration. But I think what we're trying to discern here is these are presumably spirits that are in a forbidden place or a hell-like structure that ultimately are fallen angels. Any other thoughts about that scenario? All right. So I think what I'm going to do now is make you wait until next week for the more defined identification of these spirits, and I think putting it in to better historical context.

Again, I didn't sense that there was time today to open this door, but we'll crack it open today to hopefully invite you back for our second part of this section of Scripture next week. It's a great cliffhanger. I told you to get your ropes out, Roger.

So what did Christ preach or proclaim? And chryso is the Greek term for claim is probably a better interpretation here. Was it the gospel? And I think Roger already said it wasn't. Constable, again, used in secular Greek in an official announcement or a proclamation made by a representative of a government. The word in itself does not indicate the content of the message. So again, I think, Roy, you said we don't know what he preached or proclaimed. And one of the things, too, that we could add to that is that there is a word that the Holy Spirit could have used. Eulogizami?

Yes, right. But he did not use it here. Well, let's see. No, I guess I've got that for next week, OK? However, there are multiple examples of this used to proclaim the gospel, too. So you can't say that this Greek term was only used to proclaim an official announcement. But you're right. The other terms to preach are not what were used here. Right. Moreover, and I had that in this text this week, Roy, but I did remove it simply because of time.

And we're about done, everyone. Moreover, what do you make of the following? First Peter 4, 5, and 6, they will give an account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this reason, the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to man in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. What do you make of that, if in fact our interpretation is consistent with the fact that the gospel was not preached to the dead? Well, isn't that what's going on now? Well, yeah.

OK. I wanted someone to go there. That could be a present application for sure. Right. We leave this for next week because we need to, you know, move on. We shut it down and get ready for the next one. Let people come. OK. Sorry to override. OK. Class is closed. OK. Well, they're all it's all good things. I mean, I want to it's actually piqued my interest a little bit to go back and look at this. So good, good questions and good thoughts.

OK, let's close in prayer. Father, we're grateful for the word that gives us all truth and gives us the power to discern it at your will. We're thankful for the fellowship we've had this morning and service to follow. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. Amen.