Bumby Bible Questions 20

Introduction

Good morning. If it hasn’t been tipped off, this is the fourth Sunday of the month. And that means we’re going to be doing some question and answers once again. And we’d like to invite you to continue sending in those questions, but today we’re going to go for somewhere between two and five questions. Usually that means more too than five. But just so you know, that is our goal this morning. And you can submit those questions in at least three ways, probably more than that, but at least three. Number one is you can just give them to us directly. And again, our only request is that you do that in writing. It’s possible that we’ll forget. And so if you’ll hand those to us in writing or watch us write them down as you tell them to us, uh we’ve renamed the suggestion box in the foyer is to the question box.

And so you can put those, again, write those down, put those in the questionslash suggestion box. Or you can email those to us. Bumby BibleQuestions at gmail.com is the dedicated email address for the question box. And so we do solicit, we appreciate the questions. We’ve gotten some excellent questions so far. Uh, but we uh solicit the continued question. Keep asking those questions. I guarantee you that if you have a question, there’s more than one other person that has that same question. So do them a favor and ask that question for them and do it in one of those uh three ways. Uh we’ve enjoyed, we enjoy this question and answer time. We’ve gotten some good feedback from you, so let’s keep it going. And the way to do that is to keep those questions coming to us.

1. Why Jesus Refers to Himself as the Son of Man

And by the way, uh some have sent us individually the emails. That’s totally fine too. If you get home and you don’t remember Bumby Bible Questions at gmail.com and you’re not near our suggestion box because you’re well at home, uh, feel free to email it to us and he and I just send it to that box. It helps us stay organized if you can skip that step, but we’re more than happy to take the email that way too. So don’t just not submit a question because you can’t remember the box that Ken’s too old to always remember. Alright, so as we look at the first question, why does Jesus refer to himself as the Son of Man? Why would Jesus refer to himself as the Son of Man?

Now that’s important to look at both the language and the fact that Jesus said that. So let’s look at Mark chapter 10. Look at one example of him saying that. In Mark chapter 10, Jesus would call himself the Son of Man. That’s important for two reasons. One is that the title is affecting him. That means that he is the Son of Man, and the truth behind it is undeniable. And whatever Son of Man means, whatever it is implied, whatever it actually fully embraced means, it is true, and we have to reconcile it somehow with Scripture because Jesus called himself that. And so you see, for example, uh beginning in verse 42, Jesus speaking to some. He said, You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.

But it shall not be so among you, but whoever would be great among you must first be your servant. And whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. So of course you see in verse 45, he refers to himself as the Son of Man. And ironically in this passage, the Son of Man came to do what? Well, to serve. Rather than lording it over anyone, he came to serve. So really, as we unpack this, we’re going to see two ideas, both fairly rooted in prophecy. One that the Messiah would be the Son of Man in a basic form, meaning that he was literally human, that he was the Son of a Man.

And you see that used in Ezekiel many times, and it’s the same way to give an illustration that Ken and I are the Son of Man. However, we’re also going to see in just a moment that there’s another prophetic part of this that refers to a lordship that this particular Son of Man would have. A kingship that he would have. So when we see Son of Man, that would ring prophetic bells for the Jews in a couple ways. One in a basic way, that this is a human, which raises big questions, how is Jesus human? And two, that he was going to be some sort of king of kings. And we’ll see if we can work out those two dilemmas here. And so this term and its sister term that just describe, in a sense, the character of the Messiah, of his being, describes him as a man, and at the same time, he wears another description or title, and that is the Son of God.

Look at John chapter one. We recognize again that these descriptions, Son of Man, just simply means he has human qualities, being, and Son of God is that he has deity within himself. And those are maybe best described as working together, if you will, in the Gospel of John, John chapter one. You’re familiar with this text that says, In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him, nothing was made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of man. It appears that John is trying to say that this person, this son of man, who looked like a human being and had all the attributes and qualities that a son of man, a human being would have, also possessed all the attributes that a son of God or a divine being was.

He was God in every sense of the word. If there’s any doubt at who this son of God, who this word who was God is, we skip down to verse 14, it says, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. And so there is that blending, if you will, this word, which was with God and was God, became flesh and blood. So he is both son of God and son of man, in both descriptive terms as well as really royal or majestic titles that are given to the one who would be able to do that, to be both son of God and son of man. Of course, how he would do that would be a great mystery, much like our mystery sound here at South Thumbi.

It’d be something we can’t quite explain, but it was something that was right in front of the Jews’ faces. How could Jesus be a man, a good teacher who looks like them, talks like them, bleeds like them, and also be God at the same time? By the way, that’s a question that has stumped us in full understanding for centuries. But from a prophetic standpoint, as Jesus is dealing with the people of that day, he’s trying to identify to them that he is the prophesied Messiah from the fleshly lineage of Abraham and David, but also that he is God in the flesh. And so the Son of Man would perhaps help with that. If you look at Daniel chapter 7, if you turn back in your Old Testament to Daniel chapter 7, we’re going to see a reference to the Son of Man having that kingship.

But as you’re turning to Daniel 7, we remember earlier in this book in chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar had that dream that Daniel would interpret of the statue of the different materials and of that giant man, if you will. And of course, at the end, there was going to be that kingdom that would last forever. So Daniel’s mind is certainly squarely on kingdoms. Look in Daniel 7, verse 13 and 14. Notice who and what is spoken of. Daniel 7, verse 13 and 14. I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man. And he came to the ancient of days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him.

His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. So who was it that gets this kingdom that won’t be destroyed? Well, one in verse 13, who is like the Son of Man, and who is presented before him, given this kingdom. Now that is Jesus. And as you look at the Son of Man, was Jesus from Abraham and David’s lineage as a man? Yes. Was he the Son of God? Was he God in the flesh? Yes. Do we know how he did both simultaneously? Not exactly. But the text shows that’s exactly what he was. And so Jesus referring to himself as the Son of Man is pivotal in really three ways. The two we’ve established, but also going back to the context of verse 45, that this Son of Man, who is equated with the King of Kings here, came to serve.

2. The Concept and Arguments for Transubstantiation

Remember, not to be served, but to serve. It is amazing. Jesus transcends us not just in simply being man, but son of God. And yet, being Son of God in the flesh, he chose to serve rather than to be served. Jesus and God in their plan of execution, no matter how little we understand it fully. So he’s both Son of Man, Son of God. Just simply means he’s divine and human all at once. Alright, question number two is explain the concept and the arguments for transubstantiation. You’re probably all talking about that this week. Transubstantiation. Now some of you may be thinking, I’ve heard of that before. I don’t remember what it is. And maybe a few of you are saying, I’ve never even heard of that before.

But it is a fairly popular doctrine among some in the religious world, and our questioner wants to know really what it is and how they get to this point. And so let’s talk about transubstantiation. Alright, so really what we see is we see this, and we’re going to talk about which groups have which belief system stemming from this. But in its basic elements, transubstantiation is the doctrine that the elements of the Lord’s Supper actually become the body and blood of Jesus. So when we partake of the Lord’s Supper in a couple hours here, Lord willing, we’re going to pray for the bread, which represents, we’ll say the body of God, and the fruit of the vine, which we’ll say represents the blood of Jesus. But to some, they would say that no, this literally and miraculously, supernaturally, becomes the body and blood of Jesus, the flesh and blood of the Son of Man, as and only while we partake of it in a Lord’s Supper way.

And this transformation, this trans, this change in the substance, they would argue, the outside, they would say looks the same. It still looks like bread. It still looks like juice, but in some mysterious way, it actually changes into the literal body and the literal blood of Christ. This is a doctrine that is prevalent among both the Catholic Church and the Greek or Greek Orthodox Church. That’s the doctrine of transubstantiation again, where the elements change from what we see into literally becoming the body and blood of Christ. Now, this is similar to a doctrine known as consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is popular among the Lutherans and the Anglicans, and consubstantiation differs slightly from transubstantiation, is that consubstantiation says that it’s kind of both at the same time. It’s still bread, but it’s also 50% the body of Jesus, and it’s still juice, but it’s also at the same time the literal blood of Christ.

And so there’s those beliefs that the elements of the Lord’s Supper don’t just, as Greg said, don’t just represent the body and the blood, but they actually become the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. So what we want to do is look at a couple of uh what we will call their explanations to be fair to it. Uh look at this long uh dialogue here from the Council of Trent. Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body, we’re going to examine that in a moment, that he was offering under the species of bread. It has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this Holy council now declares again that by the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.

This change the Holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation. I said, This is in effect the doctrinal statement on this from the Catholic Church, that it literally and unequivocally becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus. We’re not summarizing that, we’re not making that up. That is the holy pass down from the Roman Catholic Church belief. And so, what’s the point of this? Why this belief, and maybe it’s explained in this future quote from the catechism of the Catholic Church that says the Eucharist, that’s the Lord’s Supper, the elements of the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist is the very sacrifice of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, which he instituted to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until his return in glory, this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.

Now, notice the point there that the belief, and maybe the basis for this belief, is that when it becomes, when it changes from what we see to being the actual body and blood of Christ, that the sacrifice that Jesus offered on that cross is being repeated. The very sacrifice of the blood, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus, which he instituted to perpetuate the sacrifice in the cross throughout the ages. And so the belief would be in that change that every time that these elements are partaken of, Jesus is sacrificed again, that his sacrifice is being offered again. And that raises a problem scripturally, as we’re going to see. I think when we look at this, we want to look first of all where perhaps the most direct evidence comes from.

There’s really two ways that they get here. One of them is looking at a passage like John 6, where Jesus refers to himself as the bread of life or what have you. But that’s not really talking about the Lord’s Supper at all. But let’s look at the passage that is. In Matthew 26. Matthew 26, verse 26 through 29. All four of these verses are going to be important here. And as we remember, there are passages where Jesus talks about being the bread of life or something to that effect. Those are in a different context with a different meaning. But here, Jesus is absolutely talking about whether the symbolic or the literal nature of his body and blood for the Lord’s Supper. So we’ll read verse 26.

Now, as they were eating, Jesus took bread and after blessing it, broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, Take eat, this is my body. And he took a cup, and when he had given things, he gave it to them, saying, Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Now stop the reading there for a moment. You can see how you would get to a literal perspective. You see at the end of verse 26, with the bread, Jesus says simply, take eat this is my body.

This is my body. The same thing in verse 28, this is my blood of the covenant. But this second one is really helpful for us to see. First of all, is that what he’s claiming? And there’s a lot of other passages that make this clear. Verse 29 in and of itself clears up this mystery for us. Now remember, in 27 he had taken a cup, gave things, and said, drink from this cup, all of you. And then what did he say in verse 28? This cup is my blood. But if we’re going to be painstakingly literal, we have to keep reading. In verse 29, I tell you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink at new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

That creates a very big problem if we’re going to just stop and say, ignoring all biblical context, he said, this is. So that means this cup, in a span of three verses, was fruit of the vine, blood, and back to fruit of the vine, with no real reason for it shifting back and forth. That can be plotted. And again, even ongoing in verse 29, he says, I won’t drink of this again. The implication would be that they would. And what would they drink of? The fruit of the vine, not the blood. So you can’t even literally drop in and just say, well, this is what it says. That’s not even fair because it would just be changing back and forth throughout the time. So this isn’t the right place to get proof of that re-crucifixion of Jesus.

And it’s not even really where to get the literal body and blood of Jesus from. And so what they fail to recognize is Jesus’ frequent use of figures of speech.

He’s speaking in simile of saying, this represents my body. Just as the scriptures refer to Jesus as a lamb. No one that I know of argues that Jesus at any point literally became a four-footed lamb. But we understand when he says Jesus is the Lamb, that it’s saying he represents, he in some way matches some parallels to that. And that’s obviously what Jesus was saying here when he says, This is this is my body, this is my blood. But when we think about the idea that through transubstantiation, the sacrifice is repeated over and over again when it’s partaking, that contradicts Scripture. Let’s turn over in Hebrews chapter 10, and what the Hebrew writer says about the sacrifice of Jesus, distinguishing this sacrifice from the Old Testament sacrifices, the Old Testament sacrifices that had to be repeated over and over and over again.

And the reason for that, the Hebrew writer argues, is it’s because they never really took away sins. If they did, then they wouldn’t have to have been offered over and over. But look in Hebrews chapter 10, verses 10, 11, and 12. He says, by that will, that is the will of God, by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest, that’s the Old Testament priest, every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down at the right hand of God. The Hebrew writer says, Jesus sacrifice, unlike the Old Testament sacrifices, Jesus’ sacrifice was once for all.

It is not, it does not need to be repeated over and over again. And so it’s a misunderstanding of the Lord’s Supper and the elements of the Lord’s Supper to make the argument that in the Lord’s Supper, in the changing of these substances, in whatever way we might believe that, that Jesus is being sacrificed over and over again. The Hebrew writer said, once for all. He doesn’t need to be sacrificed over and over again. And so this is simply a memorial, not a sacrifice. And that’s the biblical understanding of this is the Lord’s Supper is not a repeating of the sacrifice of Christ, but it is a remembering of the sacrifice of Christ. And so when we say this is his body, this is his blood, we mean it in the same way that Jesus meant it, in the same way that he told us to do this, not as a repeating of his sacrifice, but to do this in remembrance of him.

Now you’re creating a lot of really important doctrinal problems on what seems like such a minor change. And it has these ripples that cause not only misunderstanding, but a misrepresentation of what our faith truly is to be.

3. Why Would Someone Need to Be Rebaptized?

A couple elements of the idea of being, quote, rebaptized. So here’s the question. Why would someone need to be re baptized, if at all? Would someone who falls away? The subtext here is that they are Christian properly and desires to come back need to be baptized again. So, first of all, we have to look at the idea of what rebaptism is before we decide if someone would need to be rebaptized and who that candidate would be. When we look at the New Testament, our authority, there’s no biblical record, no biblical example of anyone being re-baptized. That is, having been baptized for the remission of their sins into Jesus Christ, and then having to be baptized again at some future time. When we go throughout the book of Acts, in Acts chapter 2, on the day of Pentecost, they were baptized.

Peter and the rest of the apostles told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. In Acts chapter 8, we have the story of the Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailer. We have example after example of people coming to Christ initially to be baptized for the remission of their sins into Jesus Christ, but we never have an example of someone having done it properly, according to the biblical pattern and being baptized again. Acts chapter 22, we have the story of the conversion of Saul telling the story of his conversion and him being baptized to wash away his sins. And so we have account after account of people being baptized biblically or scripturally, but we never have an account of someone being rebaptized after having been baptized scripturally initially.

Now, we need to make a distinction there. Is it possible and maybe even probable that today someone has done something that they called baptism, or maybe some religious organization called baptism that was not the baptism of the New Testament? And then upon learning the truth that they would need to be baptized for the remission of their sins into Jesus Christ. Yes. But we distinguish that from this idea of re-baptism because they were never baptized for the remission of their sins into Jesus Christ to begin with. And so there’s no re-baptism if there was no true baptism in the biblical sense the first time. I think as we look at this, this question gets muddied and confused because the word baptism has come to mean so many different things.

If you’ll pull out a definition, it now can include sprinkling, pouring. When we talk about baptism from a New Testament point of view, the word doesn’t even mean special ceremony. You know, again, as we take it to mean in English, it just means immersion. And so when we say re-baptized, we mean is somebody immersed again into the name of Jesus Christ and all that entails. And that is absent from the scripture, that being done a second time to the same person. However, in Acts 19, there are some people who become Christians who are baptized what we might say, a second time, immersed in water a second time. But note what’s different about that from category number one. Look at me in Acts 19. Paul comes across some disciples, they’re described as an Ephesus.

And in verse 3, he asked them a very important question. He says, Into what then were you baptized? And they said, John’s baptism. Now stop for a moment. Obviously, that would be John the Baptist, who would preach an immersion of repentance. Now, John the Baptist preached and taught, in fact, died before Jesus died, was buried and resurrected. So this is not the same baptism as the baptism into the name of Jesus. So, yes, these people, if they are baptized, they’re going to get immersed in water a second time, but not for the same reason. So notice what Paul does with them in verse 4. Paul says, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is Jesus.

And on hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Even though they got immersed in water twice, do we see that they were immersed in the name of Jesus once? That is a critical distinction to Paul. Because he asked to ask them what is their experience, and when he finds out it’s not in the name of Jesus, they stop and do it on the spot. Now, in the name of Jesus carries that authority, and we can talk about some different ideas in a moment. But we’re going to just about in a moment going to paint different ideas of different people who have gotten wet, so to speak, religiously, and see what the scripture says about their situations. But these people were responding to John the Baptist’s baptism. To reinforce our point, we remember the text in the book of Ephesians, chapter 4, when Paul talks in that list of ones, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

And so the baptism into Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins is the one baptism. Can we read about other baptisms even in the Bible? Yes. Can we look in the religious world, as Greg said, and see dozens of different types of baptisms being practiced? Yes. But when it comes to the truth of the gospel, Paul says, just as there’s one Lord, one faith, there’s actually only one baptism. And so that makes that different than any other baptism that was practiced by John, any other baptism that’s even practiced in the religious world today, if it differs from the baptism that we read about for the remission of sins into Jesus Christ. And so we want to look at just three cases of different examples of a baptism, if you will, and see what the text teaches about those illustrations.

4. Three Cases: Infant, Outward Sign, Fallen Away

The first one, what about someone who was only, by the way, only is implied in these, baptized as an infant. Well, if you think about what baptism in the name of Jesus represents, an infant would have no need of, nor have the awareness to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Why? Two critical components to baptism in the name of Jesus. One, you have to believe in Jesus. Believe that He is the Son of God, that you are sharing in that death, burial, and resurrection. An infant doesn’t have that capability. Secondly, and the great news for the infants out there is they don’t need forgiveness of sins because passages like Matthew 18 and others indicate that they are without sin, because they cannot choose to violate God’s will.

So they neither need the baptism for the forgiveness of sins, nor are they eligible to be baptized in the name of Jesus because they don’t have a belief in what they are doing, and more importantly, in the Lord, who is granting us that avenue of forgiveness. And so someone who is baptized as an infant would not be said to be re baptized, because that was not a real scriptural New Testament, Ephesians 4, one baptism. They would simply be baptized once for the forgiveness of their sins in the name of Jesus Christ. Okay, secondly, what about someone who was baptized as an outward sign of an inward grace, in other words, the belief that they were saved through some religious experience and then baptized after that fact.

Well, again, that baptism is not the baptism that we read about in the Bible. In fact, we would issue a friendly challenge. A friendly challenge is to go throughout the New Testament and read all the accounts of baptism in the name of Jesus and find one, just one instance where someone was saved and then baptized later. The baptism of the Great Commission, Jesus said, told his apostles to go into the world and preach the gospel and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is the idea of the authority of Jesus. And so if we’re talking about baptism in the name of or by the authority of Jesus Christ, it is not someone who was felt like they were saved before and then baptized later.

That’s not the baptism of the New Testament. That’s not the baptism into Jesus Christ that the Bible talks about. And so back to the root question and to wrap up both this question and our session this morning. What about someone who was baptized into Christ but fell away? For sake of time, we won’t look at all this, but consider Acts 8. We’ll kind of talk through it quickly. In Acts chapter 8, verse 12 and 13, you have Philip preaching the good news about Jesus, verse 12 indicates to the people there, and many were baptized and believed. But one in particular in verse 13 is highlighted. Even Simon himself believed and was baptized. So he is continuing on, but after this baptism into the name of Jesus, with this water, this immersion into water, they didn’t have the ability to do miraculous things.

And so they call Peter and John to come out and to give the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the new Christian converts there. Now remember, Simon of Acts 8 is a sorcerer who had been amazing the people. And he realized what they can do is really powerful, really miraculous. And so he tries to buy this ability. He tries to pay for it. And Peter, of course, calls out his sin. But notice Peter doesn’t say, all right, well, you were just baptized, you obviously didn’t get it. So we’re going to do it again. Run it back. He also doesn’t say, well, you fell away. So go study, see your error, see your greed, and we’ll baptize you again. No. What he says in Acts 8, if you want to look at one verse, 22, repent therefore of this wickedness of yours and pray to the Lord that if possible the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.

That matches 1 John 1 9, that God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we are willing to confess them. So when someone is baptized into Christ, there is no need for baptism again into Jesus, because God has placed, let’s say, mechanisms for those who have fallen away to pray a prayer of repentance and confession. And because God is faithful and just, he will cleanse us from our unrighteousness. That is the New Testament plan of God. And again, the challenge stands. If there is any anomalies to that, any singular examples of otherwise, we would like to see them, but until then we can only teach what the Bible teaches there on that topic. And so let’s try to summarize that. If someone says, Well, I was baptized or sprinkled as an infant, do I need to be baptized again?

Well, I guess the biblical answer would be no. You don’t need to be baptized again. You need to be baptized the first time. Baptism, as we read about in the New Testament. Someone who says, Well, I was saved and then I was baptized later as an outward sign of an inward grace. Do I need to be baptized again? We would say, No, you don’t need to be baptized again. You need to be baptized to the biblical baptism for the first time. If someone says, Well, I was baptized, but I’ve fallen away, and I need to come back, do I need to be baptized again? We would say, no. That we Greg read the pattern in Acts chapter 8. But then the question arises, well, but I was pretty young.

I don’t know that I understood what I was doing. I don’t know that I really had faith and repentance. Now that’s an issue that really has to be wrestled with someone’s conscience and looking at the scriptures. But again, we wouldn’t say you need to be baptized again if you didn’t truly have faith and repentance the first time, then like these other examples, you weren’t baptized for the remission of sins according to the pattern of the New Testament. And so you don’t need to be baptized again, but there may be a chance that you need to be baptized scripturally for the first time. But we would caution that every Christian is going to have a deeper understander, standing later in their faith, and may have some doubts about that.

Conclusion

Well, I didn’t know then what I know now. Well, who does? But as long as we know what the Bible teaches about baptism, know that we’re in our sins, and we want to have that remedied from our sins because we believe, we want to leave the path of sin, and we want to be baptized to have our sins washed away. We were baptized for the remission of sins into the name of Jesus, and there’s no biblical pattern to do that again and again. We appreciate everyone’s time and attention this morning. If you will, we’re going to have a word of prayer before we dismiss to our Bible classes. Our dear God and most gracious and loving Heavenly Father, we thank you for sending Jesus to come into this world to take part of being a Son of Man and yet to serve rather than be served.

Thank you for his sacrifice on the cross, that we remember each Lord’s day with the taking of the body and his body and bread and his blood and the fruit of the vine symbolically. Help us to never underestimate or forget the importance and the critical nature of that great sacrifice, the sacrifice being truly what it was. Thank you for making a way of escape from our sins possible. Thank you for allowing us to be called children of yours. And we pray that all of us will read your word and do whatever it says, whether it includes baptism, submission, or anything that it takes to be a child of yours. Thank you for your sacrifice. Thank you for your love always. It’s in your Son’s name we pray.

Amen.