Biblical Penal Substitution

[Yeshua1]

@JonC, @JonShaff, @Iconoclast,
I promised to do something on 2 Corinthaians 5:21 and explain why I don't believe that hamartian can mean 'sin offering' there.
I want to give three reasons: the contextual reason, the linguistic reason and what I shall call the figurative reason.

So here's the verse, in the NKJV: 'For He made Him who knew no sin [hamartian], to be sin [hamartian] for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'
The suggestion is made that the second use of hamartia in the verse should be translated 'sin offering' rather than 'sin.' First of all, hamartia is used 57 times in the Pauline epistles (I exclude Hebrews, as most people do) and every time it means 'sin.' I cannot see another place where it might reasonably be translated 'sin offering' (but I'm prepared to be proved wrong ).

Secondly, the two uses of hamartian are separated by just three words in English and only two in the Greek. It makes no sense to say, 'He made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us,' and to use the word twice so close together and expect people to pick up the different meanings seems to me to be a massive stretch.

Next, we come to the linguistic argument The terms 'Sin offering,' 'offering for sin,' sin sacrifice' or 'sacrifice for sin' only occur in one chapter of one book of the N.T., namely Hebrews 10. It is my case that hamartia on its own is never used in the N.T. to mean 'sin offering.' The Greek word for 'offering' is prosphora, and so in Hebrews 10:18, 'offering for sin' is, in Greek, prosphera peri hamartias (genitive case). the Greek word for 'sacrifice' is thusia, so in Hebrews 10:12, 'sacrifice for sins' is, in the Greek, huper amartion [gentive case] thusian, and in Hebrews 10:26, peri hamartion thusia. [if there is a significance in the different prepositions, I'm not aware what it is]

Now in the Septuagint Greek translation of the O.T, of course, 'sin offerings' and other offerings would come much more regularly, especially (though not exclusively) in Leviticus, so they seem to have developed a sort of shorthand, so that prosphera peri hamartias became just peri hamartias. And so you find in Hebrews 10:6, where the LXX is being quoted that 'sacrifices for sin' translates peri hamartias, and the same is true for 'offerings for sin' in Hebrews 10:8.

But hamartian (accusative case as in 2 Cor 5:21) is never used in the LXX, or elsewhere in Greek literature SFAIK, to mean 'sin offering.'

I will deal with the figurative meaning in a subsequent post.

I think that paul knew that his take on this would be " as sin", and the Holy Spirit inspired that particular Greek wording there!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think these persons linked here give solid teaching concerning substitution;
There are no shortcuts. Each thought needs to be looked at.
Spurgeon - Christ was not guilty, and could not be made guilty; but he was treated as if He were guilty, because He willed to stand in the place of the guilty. Yea, He was not only treated as a sinner, but He was treated as if He had been sin itself in the abstract. This is an amazing utterance. The sinless one was made to be sin.

Isaiah speaks of how Jesus was made to be sin...

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried, yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. (Isaiah 53:4, 5, 6)

Comment by John MacArthur: The Father treated Jesus as if He were a sinner by charging to His account the sins of everyone who would ever believe (Ed: Some would say the sins of everyone for all time). All those sins were charged against Him as if He had personally committed them, and He was punished with the penalty for them on the Cross, experiencing the full fury of God’s wrath unleashed against them all. It was at that moment that

Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying,...'My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?’ (Mt 27:46).

Those men are describing the very heart of the Cross, as if you away Substitution, you have substituted another Gospel!

 

[JonShaff]

Jesus dealt with the sin problem. our spiritual death, as he himself told us that ALL in Him shall never really die again!

Jesus stated that though we die, yet shall we still live!

I'm not disagreeing with anything here really--but your view does not explain why people still physically die.

 

[JonShaff]

@JonC, @JonShaff, @Iconoclast,
I promised to do something on 2 Corinthaians 5:21 and explain why I don't believe that hamartian can mean 'sin offering' there.
I want to give three reasons: the contextual reason, the linguistic reason and what I shall call the figurative reason.

So here's the verse, in the NKJV: 'For He made Him who knew no sin [hamartian], to be sin [hamartian] for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'
The suggestion is made that the second use of hamartia in the verse should be translated 'sin offering' rather than 'sin.' First of all, hamartia is used 57 times in the Pauline epistles (I exclude Hebrews, as most people do) and every time it means 'sin.' I cannot see another place where it might reasonably be translated 'sin offering' (but I'm prepared to be proved wrong ).

Secondly, the two uses of hamartian are separated by just three words in English and only two in the Greek. It makes no sense to say, 'He made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us,' and to use the word twice so close together and expect people to pick up the different meanings seems to me to be a massive stretch.

Next, we come to the linguistic argument The terms 'Sin offering,' 'offering for sin,' sin sacrifice' or 'sacrifice for sin' only occur in one chapter of one book of the N.T., namely Hebrews 10. It is my case that hamartia on its own is never used in the N.T. to mean 'sin offering.' The Greek word for 'offering' is prosphora, and so in Hebrews 10:18, 'offering for sin' is, in Greek, prosphera peri hamartias (genitive case). the Greek word for 'sacrifice' is thusia, so in Hebrews 10:12, 'sacrifice for sins' is, in the Greek, huper amartion [gentive case] thusian, and in Hebrews 10:26, peri hamartion thusia. [if there is a significance in the different prepositions, I'm not aware what it is]

Now in the Septuagint Greek translation of the O.T, of course, 'sin offerings' and other offerings would come much more regularly, especially (though not exclusively) in Leviticus, so they seem to have developed a sort of shorthand, so that prosphera peri hamartias became just peri hamartias. And so you find in Hebrews 10:6, where the LXX is being quoted that 'sacrifices for sin' translates peri hamartias, and the same is true for 'offerings for sin' in Hebrews 10:8.

But hamartian (accusative case as in 2 Cor 5:21) is never used in the LXX, or elsewhere in Greek literature SFAIK, to mean 'sin offering.'

I will deal with the figurative meaning in a subsequent post.

Thank you for your reply!

I appreciate your explanation.

I have two questions:
1. Do you believe Christ was a sin offering? A yes or no will suffice.

2. Why did you not pull in the greater context of 2 Cor. 5 as Paul is explaining the greater realities of the New Covenant in Christ, as opposed to the first covenant given by Moses (Chapters 3-5)?

 

[Yeshua1]

Most Greek prepositions have a very large semantic range. It is the context that decides the meaning.

We have to accept what was in the Greek text and not try to force what we want back into it!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you for your reply!

I appreciate your explanation.

I have two questions:
1. Do you believe Christ was a sin offering? A yes or no will suffice.

Isaiah 53:10 describes our Lord's life as a sin offering, but that does not alter the fact that 2 Cor 5:21 says that He was made sin for us.

2. Why did you not pull in the greater context of 2 Cor. 5 as Paul is explaining the greater realities of the New Covenant in Christ, as opposed to the first covenant given by Moses (Chapters 3-5)?

Two reasons.
1. I don't think it affects the meaning of verse 21,
2. I have a life outside of this board!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not disagreeing with anything here really--but your view does not explain why people still physically die.

Jesus dealt with the spiritually death issue right now for us, but the physical aspects awaits unto second coming, when God reverses curse of the Fall and we get glorified!

 

[JonShaff]

Isaiah 53:10 describes our Lord's life as a sin offering, but that does not alter the fact that 2 Cor 5:21 says that He was made sin for us.

Two reasons.
1. I don't think it affects the meaning of verse 21,
2. I have a life outside of this board!

Haha, thanks bro!
Hey--i love the fact that we are all learning and growing and we are serious about understanding the great works of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! We need a greater revelation of His love (Eph. 3)! May it never be that my replies or responses dim the fact that i Love my brothers and sisters here on the board!!! To Christ alone be all the glory!

 

[JonC]

@JonC, @JonShaff, @Iconoclast,
I promised to do something on 2 Corinthaians 5:21 and explain why I don't believe that hamartian can mean 'sin offering' there.
I want to give three reasons: the contextual reason, the linguistic reason and what I shall call the figurative reason.

So here's the verse, in the NKJV: 'For He made Him who knew no sin [hamartian], to be sin [hamartian] for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'
The suggestion is made that the second use of hamartia in the verse should be translated 'sin offering' rather than 'sin.' First of all, hamartia is used 57 times in the Pauline epistles (I exclude Hebrews, as most people do) and every time it means 'sin.' I cannot see another place where it might reasonably be translated 'sin offering' (but I'm prepared to be proved wrong ).

Secondly, the two uses of hamartian are separated by just three words in English and only two in the Greek. It makes no sense to say, 'He made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us,' and to use the word twice so close together and expect people to pick up the different meanings seems to me to be a massive stretch.

Next, we come to the linguistic argument The terms 'Sin offering,' 'offering for sin,' sin sacrifice' or 'sacrifice for sin' only occur in one chapter of one book of the N.T., namely Hebrews 10. It is my case that hamartia on its own is never used in the N.T. to mean 'sin offering.' The Greek word for 'offering' is prosphora, and so in Hebrews 10:18, 'offering for sin' is, in Greek, prosphera peri hamartias (genitive case). the Greek word for 'sacrifice' is thusia, so in Hebrews 10:12, 'sacrifice for sins' is, in the Greek, huper amartion [gentive case] thusian, and in Hebrews 10:26, peri hamartion thusia. [if there is a significance in the different prepositions, I'm not aware what it is]

Now in the Septuagint Greek translation of the O.T, of course, 'sin offerings' and other offerings would come much more regularly, especially (though not exclusively) in Leviticus, so they seem to have developed a sort of shorthand, so that prosphera peri hamartias became just peri hamartias. And so you find in Hebrews 10:6, where the LXX is being quoted that 'sacrifices for sin' translates peri hamartias, and the same is true for 'offerings for sin' in Hebrews 10:8.

But hamartian (accusative case as in 2 Cor 5:21) is never used in the LXX, or elsewhere in Greek literature SFAIK, to mean 'sin offering.'

I will deal with the figurative meaning in a subsequent post.

Here is my reasoning to use "sin offering""

1. There are plenty of references we could use to say that via allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture Jesus was made a "sin offering". There is no other reference where we could possibly say that Jesus became sin, except perhaps if we push "becoming a curse". But even there, the language Paul uses in Galatians 3:13 (that Jesus freed us from the curse by becoming a curse for us) can be viewed as supportive of a "sin offering" as it is literally the argument of Christus Victor theory. God gave Christ as a sin offering, He lay down his life as an offering for sin, etc. So none of us would deny that He was made a "sin offering". But nowhere do we find another passage saying He was "made sin".

2. There are plenty of references in the the LXX where ἁμαρτια is used to mean "sin offering". In fact, there are over 90 times the word ἁμαρτια means "sin offering" in the Old Testament.

Here is one example: Exodus 29:14
14 But burn the bull's meat, skin, and excrement outside the camp. It is an offering for sin.
τὰ δὲ κρέα τοῦ μόσχου καὶ τὸ δέρμα καὶ τὴν κόπρον κατακαύσεις πυρὶ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς· ἁμαρτίας γάρ ἐστιν.

3. In the Hebrew "sin" has been used to refer to "sin offering".

4. The context, in my view, demands either the interpretation "sin offering" or "flesh" (along the lines of Paul's words in Galatians 3). I believe "sin offering" the better interpretation.

5. Even those who reject the interpretation of "sin offering" in favor of "Christ was made sin" do not defend that statement on a literal basis (that Christ was literally made, to use @Iconoclast 's commentary, "a deviation from God's truth or His moral rectitude").

 

[Martin Marprelate]

14 But burn the bull's meat, skin, and excrement outside the camp. It is an offering for sin.
τὰ δὲ κρέα τοῦ μόσχου καὶ τὸ δέρμα καὶ τὴν κόπρον κατακαύσεις πυρὶ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς· ἁμαρτίας γάρ ἐστιν.

But do you not see that it is the genitive case that is used, which grammatically is an error? It should be ἁμαρτία [hamartia, not hamartias] I don't claim to have read the whole of the LXX in the Greek, but it is my firm impression that it is always the genitive. It is a sort of short hand that they used in the LXX.

 

[JonC]

But do you not see that it is the genitive case that is used, which grammatically is an error? It should be ἁμαρτία [hamartia, not hamartias] I don't claim to have read the whole of the LXX in the Greek, but it is my firm impression that it is always the genitive. It is a sort of short hand that they used in the LXX.

I don't, no.I studied Koine Greek at the graduate level for a couple of years. That means I only know enough not to be dogmatic about grammatical agreement. I believe that most would say we cannot be so precise because even among the experts there is disagreement when it comes to the language. My favorite two scholars (in Koine Greek) are Fee and Mounce. Both view the passage as saying "sin offering".

I can tell you that the word is used 94 times to mean "sin offering" in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.

So you have my reasons for holding the meaning "sin offering".

I know that you agree my view is not incorrect in terms of doctrine (because we all agree Christ was a "sin offering").

But how exactly do you define "sin" in this verse?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I want now to look at the third of my objections to the idea that ἁμαρτία means 'sin offering in 2 Cor 5:21. It may also help to understand what 'made sin' actually means. When I introduced this concept on another forum, @JonC had an attack of the vapours, so I suggest that he keeps some smelling salts handy.

In John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of figure of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? How can looking at a representation of a serpent bring about anyone's healing? How can the Lord Jesus possibly be likened to a serpent? The Israelites certainly didn't understand it because they started worshiping the serpent (2 Kings 18:4).

So, where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a figure of Christ? He is a figure of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Therefore Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10) , defeated 'by the blood of the Lamb' (v.11). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin, and the outstanding debt of it, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).

Christ was 'made sin' by having all the iniquity of His people laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6). He bore those sins, and the curse attached to them on the tree (1 Peter 2:24). So when God says, 'Look to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other' (Isaiah 45:22), it is the Lord Jesus Christ saying, "Look to Me, made sin for you! Look to Me, bearing all you sin and guilt, and the punishment of them! Look to Me, the One who is of purer eyes than to behold evil, carrying all your wickedness and then understand the horror of Gethsemane! This is what your God has done to save you! Now abhor yourselves in dust and ashes, repent of your sins that have led Me to this awful cross and trust in Me for forgiveness and eternal life."

If you go to one of the great art galleries and look at the paintings of the old masters, you mustn't just glance at them and move on. You survey them, and try to understand all the aspects of what the artist is portraying. So it is with the cross.

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't, no. I studied Koine Greek at the graduate level for a couple of years

So you don't know that the genitive singular of ἁμαρτία is ἁμαρτίας? And you don't know that ἐστιν takes the nominative? Come on!

 

[JonC]

So you don't know that the genitive singular of ἁμαρτία is ἁμαρτίας? And you don't know that ἐστιν takes the nominative? Come on!

No. I am saying that we cannot determine the context by dogmatic ally observing what we believe the tenses to have conveyed.

I provided two scholars of the language who I believe correct.

I know many theologians and teachers have fallen on both sides of the topic.

For my education (to give me a scholarly reference), will you provide a Greek scholar (an expert in the language rather than a theologian) who interprets the word as you believe correct?

Thank you.

 

[JonC]

I want now to look at the third of my objections to the idea that ἁμαρτία means 'sin offering in 2 Cor 5:21. It may also help to understand what 'made sin' actually means. When I introduced this concept on another forum, @JonC had an attack of the vapours, so I suggest that he keeps some smelling salts handy.

In John 3:14, the Lord Jesus declares, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up……” The reference is, of course, to Numbers 21:8-9, where Moses made a ‘fiery serpent,’ lifted it up on a pole, and everyone who looked upon it was cured of snake-bite. The serpent is clearly some sort of figure of the Lord Jesus, but what sort? How can looking at a representation of a serpent bring about anyone's healing? How can the Lord Jesus possibly be likened to a serpent? The Israelites certainly didn't understand it because they started worshiping the serpent (2 Kings 18:4).

So, where do we see in Scripture a red, fiery serpent? Well in Revelation 12:3, we are introduced to ‘A great fiery red dragon’ who, in verse 9, is seen to be the serpent, alias Satan himself. So how is Satan a figure of Christ? He is a figure of Christ made sin for us. The Lord Jesus manifested to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 2:8). The primary satanic work was the luring of mankind into sin. Therefore Christ was made the very epitome of sin for us, figured by the brazen serpent, and paid the penalty of His people’s sin in full, so that ‘the accuser of our brethren…..has been cast down’ (Revelation 12:10) , defeated 'by the blood of the Lamb' (v.11). Satan can no longer accuse Christians of sin because Christ has taken away their sin, and the outstanding debt of it, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:14) marked tetelestai, ‘Paid in Full’ (John 19:20; c.f. Matthew 17:24). Therefore ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is he who condemns?’ (Romans 8:33-34).

Christ was 'made sin' by having all the iniquity of His people laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6). He bore those sins, and the curse attached to them on the tree (1 Peter 2:24). So when God says, 'Look to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other' (Isaiah 45:22), it is the Lord Jesus Christ saying, "Look to Me, made sin for you! Look to Me, bearing all you sin and guilt, and the punishment of them! Look to Me, the One who is of purer eyes than to behold evil, carrying all your wickedness and then understand the horror of Gethsemane! This is what your God has done to save you! Now abhor yourselves in dust and ashes, repent of your sins that have led Me to this awful cross and trust in Me for forgiveness and eternal life."

If you go to one of the great art galleries and look at the paintings of the old masters, you mustn't just glance at them and move on. You survey them, and try to understand all the aspects of what the artist is portraying. So it is with the cross.

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.'

Hold up.

What you are presenting has nothing at all to do with the grammer (or, in fact, to the text of the verse itself).

You are applying your theology to the verse to come up with a meaning that, of course, advances your theology while the word ἁμαρτία itself is never used to represent those ideas you are bringing to the verse.

You are rejecting a position which is at least based on other passages, states an agreed upon truth, is consistent with the Hebrew use of "sin", and aside from arguments over grammer is very common to the LXX use of ἁμαρτία in the Old Testament.

But what you are offering has nothing to do with ἁμαρτία or even the actual text. It appears to be injected into the text rather than derived from it.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate and @JonShaff ,

I need to make a clarification and a bit of a correction to what I had posted.

What Mounce said of ἁμαρτία is that it is a fact it can refer to either sin or sin offering and that this has a profound implication for understanding Paul in 2 Cor. 5:21. The word is used in Leviticus (in the LXX) to refer to "sin" eight times and as a "sin offering" eleven times. He determines that Paul is saying both that Christ was made a "sin offering" and that he bore our sins (something, again, that I believe we can all affirm as a truth even if we disagree about this verse).

I do not know that that changes anything (it is implied, I think in the term "sin offering").

 

[rosesz]

Over several threads I have commented that I do not hold the Penal Substitution Theory. What I mean by this is that I do not affirm the post-medieval Penal Substitution Theory that was articulated primarily during the 16th and 17th centuries and is held in many Western churches to include evangelical Baptist churches.

While I reject Penal Substitution Theory, I affirm biblical penal substitution. This is an important distinction because it avoids the strawman arguments about “cosmic child abuse”, “bloodless atonement”, etc.

Paul tells us that God condemned sin in the flesh of the Messiah. This is penal substitution (biblical penal substitution) because God is condemning (penal) sin in the flesh of the Messiah (substitution) so that in Him there is no condemnation (we will not be condemned).

Paul tells us that the Law came that sin might abound. God gave the Law so that sin would do its worst in the people of the Law (where there is the Law there is transgression, the Law magnifies sin) and ultimately be nailed to a tree, handed to the Messiah, and dealt with once and for all in the flesh of the Messiah. This is penal substitution.

Jesus BECAME SIN for us . The cup I believe was Sin in all its grossness , abhorrent to the Godhead . He suffered on the Cross our separation because of SIN. NO wonder He felt forsaken.

 

[JonC]

Jesus BECAME SIN for us . The cup I believe was Sin in all its grossness , abhorrent to the Godhead . He suffered on the Cross our separation because of SIN. NO wonder He felt forsaken.

Define this sin that you believe God became. I this that is the issue. If you mean that He bore our sin, this is not actually becoming sin.

I disagree that the cup Christ bore was Sin. Jesus told the disciples that they would share in that cup, so it does not make sense to me to hold it as Sin. Also, in Scripture the "cup" does not always signify Sin or wrath. When it does it is typically expressed as such.

I believe it points to the suffering and death that Jesus was facing.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

I suggest that these commentaries are not evidence but explanations to one interpretation.

I suggest they are teaching the truth of God, that no one is going to disprove.

I do not see the benefit in pitting commentary against commentary.

Maybe you cannot. However many of us realize that these men were very gifted teachers gifted to local churches that we can learn much from.

There are plenty who support PSA and plenty who do not.

This is unsubstantiated opinion. There are always a few who oppose any truth. To dismiss these fine quotes as if it is equally split is not accurate.

But we should be discussing our views and the issue as we see it.

This is also an unsubstantiated opinion, you are welcome to it, but we are not obligated to follow.

[QUOTE]Christ died for us “according to the Scriptures”, not according to a few texts we can pull out as proof text while holding Scripture at an arms length[/QUOTE].

All of the men quoted have written much on the topic. To post more when most here cannot handle a few paragraphs, would not be productive. I notice no one has even began to try and refute any portion of what was quoted, as predicted.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

A few isolated texts, yes, not "the Scriptures" but verses taken from the Bible to support the view.

Highlights from lengthy teachings.

We are presenting two ideas and people need to decide which is correct.

So, let them.

[QUOTE]Is God just to forgive those who repent?

Or would God be unjust to forgive those who repent as forgiveness is based on punished sins?[/QUOTE]

These comments make no sense. They are fragmented thoughts
God is always just. God alone can forgive sins. God has biblical reasons of how sin can be forgiven.

One of those ideas is biblical and one of those ideas is human philosophy.

Agreed,Penal substitution is biblical, the other ideas or failed carnal philosophies.

People need to study Scripture (not commentaries) and decide for themselves.[/QUOTE]

I am pretty certain that Charnock,Spurgeon ,and the others have studied scripture a little bit. Scripture says a companion of wise men will be wise. Until I fellowship with these teachers in the future, I will read both scripture and their learned comments, thank you very much.